>I built and installed binutils-2.9.1.0.19a after applying the 981230 arm-diff
>patch.
>That appeared to be successful.
Applying that patch may not have been that good an idea, in fact. It won't
cause compile failures but it may generate broken binaries. You are probably
better off without it.
>on the make line. (Without giving make the -i flag, it reports that
>../libiberty/libiberty.a: No such file or directory;
Are you trying to configure or build the gcc subdirectory alone? You should
always configure and build from the top level unless you're sure you know what
you're doing. In this case, libiberty ought to be getting built before gcc.
>This got me an error message saying that my gcc version (gcc-2.95) wasn't good
>enough. Figuring that my gcc version is probably too recent for this
>configure script, I added gcc-2.95 as an option,
Yes, that's the correct thing to do. I think that from glibc 2.1.1 the
configure script has been updated.
>../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `__ashldi3'
>../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `__divdi3'
These functions should be provided by libgcc.a, which was built as part of
gcc. It seems that something went wrong during your compiler build and this
library wasn't properly created.
>Anyway, I'm stuck until I can build glibc. Should I be trying to use later
>versions of the linux headers? Am I missing some patches? Any help would be
>enormously appreciated. Thanks in advance,
You should be OK with the sources you are trying to use (though getting the
glibc 2.1.1 patch wouldn't hurt). The exact version of the kernel headers
isn't all that important.
p.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
