On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:24:19 +0100, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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,
Well, it would be if we explained what it's doing/why we're doing it. As it it, we already use and explain --disable-libgomp in pass1 so we may as well re-use it here. > 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. I don't particularly care about build-time or build-size if it enables us to build on x86 and x86_64 with the same instructions and have the same behaviour. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
