Re: Interaction between first stage build with g++ and $PATH
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:17:18PM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: I can file a bug reported if necessary, but am wondering if it is a known requirement not to have . on $PATH or to explicitly set CC and CXX? Having . in $PATH is a serious bug (especially from security POV). Just never do that. Jakub
Interaction between first stage build with g++ and $PATH
1. I have . on $PATH. 2. In one build of the latest GCC trunk, I specify CC=/usr/bin/gcc and CXX=/usr/bin/g++ and everything works. 3. In another build, I don't specify CC or CXX. Therefore they default to 'gcc' and 'g++'. This fails: g++: error trying to exec 'cc1plus': execvp: No such file or directory If I remove . from $PATH then the configuration in 3 will build. The problem is that there is a g++ executable under the built gcc directory, but cc1plus and other g++ component parts haven't been built yet. I can file a bug reported if necessary, but am wondering if it is a known requirement not to have . on $PATH or to explicitly set CC and CXX? thanks, - Gary
Re: Interaction between first stage build with g++ and $PATH
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Gary Funck g...@intrepid.com wrote: 1. I have . on $PATH. 2. In one build of the latest GCC trunk, I specify CC=/usr/bin/gcc and CXX=/usr/bin/g++ and everything works. 3. In another build, I don't specify CC or CXX. Therefore they default to 'gcc' and 'g++'. This fails: g++: error trying to exec 'cc1plus': execvp: No such file or directory If I remove . from $PATH then the configuration in 3 will build. The problem is that there is a g++ executable under the built gcc directory, but cc1plus and other g++ component parts haven't been built yet. I can file a bug reported if necessary, but am wondering if it is a known requirement not to have . on $PATH or to explicitly set CC and CXX? it's a bug. Ian
