Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
>> Le mercredi 13 février 2013 19:08:37, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
>>> Le mercredi 13 février 2013 17:16:28, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
>>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:30:14 -0700, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
>>>>> "Thomas Preud'homme" <robo...@celest.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> Why not but strike multiarch from that as I don't see how we could
>>>>>> detect it by compiling a C program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use the output of ldd to tell you where the C library is.
>>>>
>>>> Yep true, I thought about it last night and forgot about it in the
>>>> morning. However I just pushed a commit using checking where is crti.o
>>>> before reading your mail. It's a one line test so I think the solution
>>>> is not too bad but you can prove me wrong of course.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the suggestion. Thinking about it a bit I managed to come
>>> up with a much better patch. It's not totally done though but I have to
>>> leave. I'll push it tonight. Stay tuned.
>>
>> Pushed. And the diffstat from the original situation (before my 2 commits to
>> reorganize) is also better. See for yourself:
>>
>
> OK, despite what I said, I fetched commit e298f608 ("Create config-print
> program to test $cc", 13-02-2013) last night in order to test it.
> [Sorry for not reporting the results last night, but I desperately
> needed to get some sleep!]
>
> Unfortunately, the news is not good! :( Using ldd has broken the build
> again and my x86 is apparently a bigendian machine! :-P
>
So, having tested commit b9f089fc ("Don't search libgcc_s.so.1 on /lib64",
14-02-2013), this is all fixed now.
Thanks!
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
