----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Moffat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:08 AM Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures (fwd)
Ken > > Whoops, dropped the list off the Cc. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:06:37 +0000 (GMT) > From: Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Anthony Borla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Anthony Borla wrote: > > >> I wondered about the visibility tests when I saw the number of > >> failures. Yes, I've seen this, but I think it was on ppc64 multilib > >> clfs! The good news is that the basic system worked ok, as if the > >> failure might be in the test code. > >> > > > > Thanks, Ken - that's the sort of reassurance I was definitely after :) ! > > Since you most definitely aren't on ppc64, I would regard it > as "well, it might work". Of course, pretending to be on a 486 > isn't particularly common, so maybe that is the trigger. > Yes, specifying the build type as 'i486' when it is actually an 'i686' would, I'm sure, be definitely classed as unusual. The reason I started to do so was to ensure the generated code would run on an i486, particularly after seeing repeated warnings from many configure scripts about setting the 'build' option. I admit this decision was not based on a complete understanding of the impact of the 'build' option [I'm a little new to the gcc-based cross-compiling game], but was motivated simply by a desire to do everything seemingly possible to ensure i486 code is generated [*]. Given the upward compatibility of x86 CPU's it seemed a relatively benign, though perhaps, ultimately misguided, action to take. I've come this far with it, so I'll continue using it, and see where it ultimately leads. If need be, I can always go back and rebuild. The beauty of LFS is that, unlike activities like skydiving or basejumping, you can always go back and start again if you make a mistake, or otherwise take a wrong turn ;) ! > > I did wonder if a recent kernel might be involved (I had to used > 2.6.15-rc or newer on my ppc64, despite the warnings that udev > ought to be upgraded), but apparently not. > I like relatively recent, but generally avoid bleeding edge, software, especially critical software like a kernel. Cheers, Anthony Borla [*] I've experienced considerable difficulty [not to mention wasted a lot of time] getting newish RedHat Linux distributions running on a i486 platform, so am determined that my LFS [and later BLFS] efforts will succeed. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
