Hi René

On 02/14/2018 02:28 PM, René Nyffenegger wrote:


Please do not top post. According to what you say, there should be no need to add libc_cv_ctors_header=yes. Looking at my logs, I have, during the configure
stage:
------------------
checking whether to use .ctors/.dtors header and trailer... no
------------------
in both chapter 5 and chapter 6 glibc, and my build went smoothly.
There was a thread in last September about the same issue, and the OP had the
following in configure:
------------------
checking for .set assembler directive... no
checking linker support for protected data symbol... no
------------------
while I have 'yes' to these 2 items. What do you have (it's just a few lines
before configure stops)? Can you also check in chapter 5?

If there is a no, I guess you'll have to start again chapter 5. Or maybe you
just missed some symlink (section 6.6)...

Pierre
Please excuse my previous top posting.

When I tried to build LFS, I probably paid too little attentionto the details and error messages.

I completely started the build process from scratch and realized that as soon as in the 2nd build of glibc I cannot go further. When ./configure tries to execute ./a.out, ./a.out seg faults. This is,
what I assume, I missed.

I also paid too little attention: my gcc version is 7.3.0 and the book explicitely states that versions +4.4.1 are not recommended. Similar thing with glibc which is version 2.26 (versions +2.10.1 not being recommended)


I don't think this is your problem, as I built the whole newest lfs toolchain with
- gcc 5.3.0
- glibc 2.23

After you built the toolchain, and verified its usability, those versions should not be a problem anymore, as you will build against 7.3.0 und 2.27 anyway.

I'm afraid your problem is just a stupid typo somewhere in either glibc, binutils or gcc, either in chapter 5 or 6.

Bye
Tim
--
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