Ken Moffat nous �crivait :
>> > If the earlier headers are like 2.6.11.2, it should be defined
>> > just above this in types.h : mine has
>> >
>> > #ifdef __CHECKER__
>> > #define __bitwise __attribute__((bitwise))
>> > #else
>> > #define __bitwise
>> > #endif
>> >
>> > How do your headers look ?
>> Yes, it looks exactly the same.
>>
>
> Hmm,�in�your�original�post�you�talked�about�compiler�optimization.
> What optimization flags did you pass to the toolchain (glibc, gcc,
> binutils) and did you successfully run the testsuite for each of
> them ?
As the book states, I've unseted the optimization for those three builds
(initializing it just before building coreutils in chapter 6).
Each testsuite succedeed, except the gcc one which issued a "check not remade
because of errors" ; anyway, I've search in LFS feedback, and found it was a
"normal" error which can be left aside without consequences. As far as I
didn't set optimization at this stage, I don't know what I can do else to
make this gcc testsuite succeed.
I don't know if it can help, but I've tried to build kbd outside the chroot,
and it builds well ; furthermore, the types.h of my source system (knoppix)
and of my lfs are really different (I can post the diff file if you want).
--
Laurent Hug�.
GPG fingerprint = 0C2C E683 528B 481F AA27 30A1 B55E 6B89 FA7F 44C0
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
