On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:23:15PM +0200, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On 06.10.2014 13:06, Pierre Labastie wrote:
>
> >Since we do not want libgcc2 to containing any code which requires libc
> >support, we pass --with-newlib --without-headers (equivalent to
> >--with-headers=no). And this is needed!
> >
>
> Show me where that will be a problem.
> I've created (stage1) cross-compilers like this multiple times, on multiple
> linux distros without any problems:
>
> ${SRCDIR}/bin/gcc/configure --prefix=${TOOLS} --target=${CROSS_TARGET}
> --disable-shared --disable-threads --without-headers
> --disable-decimal-float --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c
> --disable-libquadmath --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libatomic
> --disable-libmudflap --libexecdir=${TOOLS}/lib --disable-nls
>
Are you saying it is not required in LFS, because you have built
LFS while omitting those switches ? Your mail is not clear, at
least to me. Building stage1 pseudo-cross-compilers without then
building LFS seems a pointless activity (although I have done the
equivalent myself a couple of times, to build a kernel on ppc64
with 32-bit userspace, and I am sure people could do the same for
i686 userspace with an x86_64 kernel), but your post leaves me
confused about how far you have gone in building LFS.
If something is not needed, and you have built LFS enough times to
prove that to your satisfaction, why have you not mentioned it
before ?
I will also note that your command is apparently running configure
in a bin/gcc directory - that makes me dubious about what you say,
we run the toplevel configure script.
Unrelated to that, why do you care about libexecdir in /tools ?
Even the people who hate /usr/libexec usually seem OK with what
happens in /tools because that is a temporary part of the build.
ĸen
--
Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady.
Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
