On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:13:12 -0700 Paul Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
> FWIW, I've built and run LFS-7.7 on a 1.0 GHz VIA C7 "Esther", a Pentium-3 > "work alike". It's a "scalar" core with branch prediction, but none of the > super-scalar out-of-order execution that has become so much of a problem. I > rather like the idea of working on a processor that runs at less than 10W, > and the mini-ITX infrastructure makes a nice small system. It was a bit of a > "heavy lift" for the processor, so I typically go back to 7.2. > Well, I continued and have just signed off a completely normal gcc test: only 1 unexpected error (in gcc itself, which I think I had the last time too), plus the 6 expected ones in libstdc++. I seem to have a sane toolchain. Interestingly gmp and mpfr both identify my machine as "nano-pc-linux-gnu" rather than x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, so Bruce is sort-of right when he calls it a different architecture. They both set themselves up to run with -march=nano -mtune=nano. What glibc thought it was building on, I have no idea, as I couldn't find a config.guess script in the package. The real test will be whether I can build a bootable kernel. -- 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
