Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 04/02/2015 03:04, Ken Moffat a écrit :
On 24th Jan, on -chat, somebody called C A queried this -
Quoting from
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-chat/2015-January/028737.html
So, when adjusting a toolchain after compiling dummy.c as part of
testing, when running:
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
the result is:
SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib64")
SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib");
but the book says it should be:
SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("/lib");
and the further statement in the book is:
If the output does not appear as shown above or is not received at
all, then something is seriously wrong. Investigate and retrace
the
steps to find out where the problem is and correct it.
In my own scripts, I normally just grep for the values I expect to
find, but this time I've logged the full results and it looks to me
as if the results are indeed as shown above (on x86_64, obviously -
i686 would only have one /tools/*linux*/lib entry).
So, what am I missing ? In general, people do not complain that
their output at this point does not match (i.e. exceeds) what the
book suggests.
ĸen
Seems there is an oscillating behaviour of the results as a function of
binutils version
number: see
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2013-April/067945.html
Actually, "/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib64" does not exist anyway...
But maybe somebody should change the book again!
BTW, here is the output on i686 (recent build with gcc-4.9.2 and
binutils-2.25):
SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib32")
SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib");
The point of the test is to ensure that /tools/lib and /tools/usr/lib
are NOT present. Perhaps we should just say that.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
