> From: Hazel Russman <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 17:28:07 +0100
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.10 rc1. Tool chain technical notes 5.2
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:54:46 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hazel Russman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:22:18 +0200 Pierre Labastie
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 25/08/2016 12:32, Hazel Russman wrote:
> > >>> There seem to be a couple of typos in the paragraph on building
> > >>> glibc. The --host parameter would be $LFS_TGT which evaluates (for
> > >>> a 32-bit system) to i686-lfs-linux-gnu, not i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc
> > >>> as written.
> >
> > >> I guess you mean the sentence "The compiler is generally not an
> > >> issue since Glibc will always use the compiler relating to the
> > >> /|--host|/ parameter passed to its configure script, e.g. in our
> > >> case, i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc". I trust you about English, but for me,
> > >> the "e.g." may as well refer to the compiler...
> >
> > > Yes, I was hasty. The second reference (to CC) is correct. The first,
> > > which you quoted, is definitely ambiguous. As phrased, it could refer
> > > either to the --host parameter itself or to the compiler which
> > > configure chooses as a consequence. May I suggest a small emendation
> > > for clarity: "...configure script. In our case, this compiler will be
> > > i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc."
> >
> > I don't understand. We now say:
> >
> > The compiler is generally not an issue since Glibc will always use the
> > compiler relating to the --host parameter passed to its configure script,
> > e.g. in our case, i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc.
LC_ALL=C TZ=UTC0 diff -Naur /tmp/txt.{orig,neue}
--- /tmp/txt.orig 2016-08-25 18:30:39.371000002 +0000
+++ /tmp/txt.neue 2016-08-25 18:31:37.441000002 +0000
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
The compiler is generally not an issue since Glibc will always use the
-compiler relating to the --host parameter passed to its configure script,
-e.g. in our case, i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc.
+compiler relating to the --host parameter passed to its configure script;
+e.g. in our case, the compiler will be i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc.
; or s/will be/is/ , etc.
> >
> > Can you please clarify your suggested clarification?
> >
> > -- Bruce
> As written, "e.g. in our case, i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc" could qualify either
> "the compiler" or "the --host parameter". It's meant to qualify the compiler
> of course, but as it directly follows the --host parameter clause, it's easy
> to read the two clauses as belonging together. That was certainly the way I
> read it, and that's why I initially thought it was an error.
>
> It's always hard to see ambiguities in something you wrote yourself because
> you know exactly what it means. It takes some other damn fool to come along
> and read it all wrong!
>
> Hazel
>
--
--
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
