On Saturday 12 June 2010 01:12:45 Chris Staub wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 01:04 AM, Face Man wrote:
> > root:/sources/glibc-build# find /tools -name 'ld*'
> > /tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ld
> > /tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ld-old
> > /tools/bin/ldd
> > /tools/bin/ld-old
> > /tools/x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld
>
(Instructional; this code is from my modified Smoothwall build system, based
on LFS. They're very similar, but not necessarily identical. The student's
exercise is to go to the book and find the exact correlated steps.)
It looks like step 3 (below) of the final toolchain adjustment might not've
happened.
mv -v ${TOOLS_DIR}/bin/{ld,ld-old}
mv -v ${TOOLS_DIR}/$(gcc -dumpmachine)/bin/{ld,ld-old}
mv -v ${TOOLS_DIR}/bin/{ld-new,ld}
ln -sv ${TOOLS_DIR}/bin/ld ${TOOLS_DIR}/$(gcc -dumpmachine)/bin/ld
There's no ld, so there might not've been an ld-new to rename. The uncertainty
should lead the student back to stage 2 of building binutils, where perhaps
the last step didn't happen:
cp -v $(COMPILE_DIR)/ld/ld-new $(TOOLS_DIR)/bin
It is also possible that none of the steps to prepare for the second adjusting
were executed.
A better command to run might be:
find /tools -name ld\* -exec ls -l {} \;
which will illuminate symlinks and better help to backtrace the 'human
program' execution.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
