On 1 September 2010 14:41, Matthew Burgess <[email protected]> wrote:
> I lied before [0] and I do see this. Why are we using 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH' > instead > of --disable-libgomp in pass2 as we do in pass 1? (yes, I'm well aware that > it was > me that committed r9254 that added this as part of the upgrade to GCC-4.5.0). > If noone has any objections, I'll change this to what we do in pass1 once I've > tested it does the right thing. > > Regards, > > Matt. Actually, I'm not that fussed about doing this either way - for some reason r9254 had never landed in my gmail inbox. Using LD_LIBRARY_PATH is arguably as educational as disabling libgomp, I'm more concerned about perl: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2010-August/064258.html On 32-bit x86 you can include objects compiled without -fPIC into a shared library, on x86_64 you cannot do that. On x86_64 -Duseshrplib does the right thing, but I suspect that on 32-bit x86 it might make the build slower and/or bigger. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!" -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
