On 09/05/2019 20:34, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:32:48AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
>> On 5/9/19 1:11 AM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
>>> My fresh build (current svn) has just installed gcc in chroot and
>>> tried to check the SEARCH directories, where it failed, apparently
>>> catastrophically.
>>>
>>> The book says:
>>> References to paths that have components with '-linux-gnu' should be
>>> ignored, but otherwise the output of the last command should be:
>>>
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib64")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib64")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib64")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");
>>>
>>> What I've got in dummy.log is:
>>> SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");
>>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/tools/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib");
>>>
>>> so I'm missing the '64' variants (which doesn't immediately worry
>>> me, my own grep on the results dates from when I still sometimes
>>> built 32-bit, and ignres anything after 'lib') but also misses
>>>
>>> /usr/.*-linux-gnu/lib which the book implies I can ignore, although
>>> until this build it has always been present, and also
>>> /usr/local/lib which seems a fairly critical place to search on the
>>> completed system.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions what has gone wrong ?
>>
>> No suggestions, but my latest (jhalfs) build gives:
>>
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib64")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib64")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib64")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
>> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");
>>
>> Did you do the sed?
>>
>> case $(uname -m) in
>> x86_64)
>> sed -e '/m64=/s/lib64/lib/' \
>> -i.orig gcc/config/i386/t-linux64
>> ;;
>> esac
>>
>> -- Bruce
>>
> Yes, I've been doing that in all my builds since January. My last
> build using 20th April LFS succeeded, there have been few changes in
> LFS since then. Oh, and I'm using 5.0.14 headers.
>
Your results look like what should be obtained at "6.10-Adjusting the
toolchain". Are you sure you are using the compiler in /usr/bin? Could it be
that your PATH is still set with /tools/bin first, or maybe that "set +h" is
not in effect?
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
