Interesting... maybe this will help me... On Saturday 21 September 2002 12:46 am, Greg Schafer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi > > Ok, I have reinstated mention of this on my tweaks page. Hopefully this > might assist in stopping many people from building systems with broken > glibc's. > > To reiterate the problem:- > > * if your Ch 5 gcc build says "checking assembler hidden support... no" > then your glibc is broken. (the glibc function __cxa_atexit will not > work properly - run glibc's make check and watch tstcxaatexit fail) >
Hmmm... I try 'make check' in the glibc-build directory and get: make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5/csu' make[2]: *** No rule to make target `/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/include/stddef.h', needed by `/usr/src/glibc-build/bits/stdio_lim.st'. Stop. > * if the binutils version on your *host* system is 2.12.1 or greater > then you should be ok - "checking assembler hidden support... yes" > my binutils version: 2.10.1 Perhaps that's the answer, update binutils...(cool more tail chasing instead of a re-install) > * using the HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN thing even if it does say "yes" is completely > harmless (we end up with HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN defined twice - big deal!) > > * now that we are passing --enable-__cxa_atexit for gcc, it is vitally > important that our __cxa_atexit function in glibc actually works. > > * if anyone has built a broken glibc then you can possibly get away with > just rebuilding glibc with the dynamic gcc again in Ch 6 > > * I still maintain that the LFS build method is potentially flawed. The > *only* thing we build with our static Ch 5 gcc is glibc, the most > important lib on the system! The only proper solution in my mind is to > build glibc twice in Chapter 6 - at the start and at the end. > > Greg > > and further: > > Is the option --enable-__cxa_atexit for gcc in chapter 5 & 6 ok ? > > or should I pass this option only in chapter 6 ? > > It only affects C++. We don't build a C++ compiler in Ch 5 therefore > there is no need to supply the switch in Ch 5. > > > should I append "#define HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN 1" to > > gcc-build/gcc/auto-host.h in chapter 5 ? > > Yes, only in Ch 5. No need in Ch 6. > > so, go read the LFS book about installing gcc and glibc and make use of > these notes. Unfortunately, I think this is different from my problem. I still think my problem is more akin to http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/glib-linux-archive/0110/0007.html, which seems to indicate an update of gcc will fix things. Unfortunately, I can't get gcc 3x to compile. So my fix is *still* a reinstall. Regards, Tim -- Caldera eWorkstation 3.1+, kernel 2.4.18-preempt, KDE 3.0.3, Xfree86 4.1.0 8:00am up 1 day, 8:46, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 It's what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
