Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > In order to build /tools to the end, I had to make the following extra > adjustments: add --disable-libmudflap to gcc pass1, and replace "make > bootstrap" with just "make" there (presumably, there is some mismatch > with 64-bit glibc or headers and toolchain on the host). So a question > naturally arises: is it really true that bootstrapping gcc pass1 > improves the range of hosts that are capable to build LFS? (accepted > answers: "no", "yes, build from host XXX version XXX fails without > bootstrapping")
I'm curious to know if the bootstrap would work if you used --disable-shared for gcc-pass1 and continued to use 'make bootstrap'. And, I'm not sure if this helps you at all, since the userspace is fully 64-bit and the versions of GCC and Glibc have been updated, but what is currently in the jh branch is building fine on Lenny amd64. I'm currently up to temporary Perl. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
