Just happened on another box, not sure if it's a problem for discussion here or upstream. So, I rebuilt my LFS-7.7 system on my i7 box using one of my 32-bit LFS' (7.2 IIRC). So I expected it to be an i686 compatible. AAMOF, I'm running it right now on one of my Conroe twin boxen. It seems to work fine. I have customized the kernel here, no glitches in gcc.
[11:26 ~]$ gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.2/lto-wrapper Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-4.9.2/configure --prefix=/usr --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --with-system-zlib Thread model: posix gcc version 4.9.2 (GCC) [11:26 ~]$ But just to make sure it's i686 as advertized, I've installed it on a real i686 "Tualatin". My default kernel for installations is standalone, no NIC support. I expect to customize the kernel real soon. So this morning from this box, with the Tualatin box up in a different room, using its LFS-7,2 based system, I ssh'ed to it, mounted the new LFS-7.7 partition, chrooted into it and began to recompile the kernel. Ironically enough it popped an "Invalid Instruction" in bugs.o! It's an instruction a Conroe can handle. I remember one of the gcc prereqs needed to be specifically told not to build code for the i7, even if the toolchain is i686. I'm thinking maybe something (else) did it anyhow. I don't expect many of you are still trying out code on i686's. Just because they're old doesn't mean, to me, that I shouldn't try to get newer systems on them. But starting over isn't going to help unless I can figure out where to (try to) enforce the i686 instruction set. Any ideas? TIA, as always. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service -- 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
