On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:10 +0100 Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:41:46PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > Because the book targets x86_64 (and to a certain extent x86). On those > > systems the number of failures is very few. The tool chain (binutils, > > glibc, and gcc) is critical to the rest of the book and undocumented > > failures there would cascade throughout the rest of the book. > > > > Technically, Hazel's machine (Via Nano) *is* x86 (or x86_64), at least > according to wikipedia. It just happens to be a slightly unknown > quantity to the rest of us. > > A year ago Hazel had the math failures and two others here - > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2017-January/050742.html > > Maybe we should reinstate the words in some form. > > ĸen > -- I only had half a dozen math errors last time around and that's tolerable. This glibc gives a lot more, over 60! As I hadn't yet installed it, I decided to scrap it and rebuild with -march=nano-2000. I've just viewed the results and they are no better. I'm going to proceed anyway and see if I run into Bruce's "cascade of errors". If so, it may mean that LFS with an up-to-date glibc can no longer be built on this processor. I shall have to stick to binary distros from now on. Fortunately LFS still builds just fine on my main desktop, which is Intel throughout. -- 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
