On 14/02/2018 16:36, René Nyffenegger wrote:
> As I am stuck with a the second pass of binutils, I examined the output of
> 
>     readelf -l /tools/$LFS_TGT-gcc | grep interpreter
> 
> which is
> 
>  [Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
> 
> I believe this is fishy and should actually be ...
> /tools/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.
> 
> Is my assumption about this being fishy right?
> 

Resending to the list, sorry for private mail, René.

Short answer, yes...

One reply to your three last posts:
In host system requirements, in the stable book, there is:
"GCC-4.7 including the C++ compiler, g++ (Versions greater than 7.2.0 are not
recommended as they have not been tested)"

For me, this means that any version between 4.7 and 7.2.0 is OK. Of course, at
the time the stable book was released, GCC-7.3.0 was not available. But now,
in the developement book, we have gcc-7.3.0, and it works. So you're good to go.

For glibc, you have 2.26, and the stable book says 2.26 is the maximum, so you
should be OK here too.

In any case, I think the issue(s) you are seeing are not coming from bad
versions in the host toolchain.

One thing which may be wrong according to the result above is the tools 
directory.

As user lfs , can you type?

ls -ld /tools $LFS/tools


(check the LFS variable is set, and the LFS partition is mounted)

It should return:
drwxr-xr-x 12 root root 4096 Feb 10 11:13 /mnt/lfs/tools
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   14 Feb 14 16:44 /tools -> /mnt/lfs/tools
(with other dates and sizes, of course)

Another possibility is that something went wrong in GCC, in the instructions
starting with:
for file in gcc/config/{linux,i386/linux{,64}}.h
do
...

Pierre
-- 
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