On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:59:16PM -0500, Ronaldo Antonio Carballo wrote:
> I'm trying to build my first LFS and I keep wondering if I'm doing this
> right. This is what I'm trying to do with my LFS:
> 
> 
>    - Create a Linux image that supports up to i586 processor to test
>    software that can only run on the i586. We're trying to test an image that
>    does not have MMX/SSE instructions.
> 
> I have gotten up to step 5.9 (Binutils Pass 2). That's when I see that
> after I run the "make install" a "i686-lfs-linux-gnu" folder shows up under
> "/tools/bin" of my LFS partition. So, I'm wondering if this step is missing
> the "--target=i586-lfs-linux-gnu" in order to properly install the new
> binaries in the "i586-lfs-linux-gnu" sub-folder.
> 
That sounds a likely solution to your problem, but it means you will
still be cross-compiling, so you probably need to watch every
subsequent compile.  And the only way to judge success will be if
the software you need to test works correctly for all tests - if it
doesn't, identifying what is not i586 will be awkward.

You are in very uncommon territory - we have had people build _on_
pre-i686 in the last few years (but perhaps not recently enough to be
sure that those builds can still be done), but you need to build on
more-modern hardware without leaking newer facilities into the
build.

I think at one time in the distant past we might have had a 'uname
hack' to build for lesser x86 processors, but I do not recall the
details.  If your tests need anything more than the base LFS, it is
possible that programs might look at /proc/cpuinfo.

Also, gmp might be a problem - use the FSF versions of the
config.guess and config.sub files (in its default files, on a native
build, it does look at the cpu and decide to build for that).

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
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

Reply via email to