This is the mail archive of the
crossgcc@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots
more information.
Re: Cross Compiling Joys, Woes, and Insanity
- From: Kumba <kumba at gentoo dot org>
- To: crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:05:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: Cross Compiling Joys, Woes, and Insanity
- References: <3F971A66.3060909@gentoo.org> <3F97854B.8000302@kegel.com>
- Reply-to: kumba at gentoo dot org
Dan Kegel wrote:
I certainly came close to losing my mind while writing my script,
so your experience corelates well with mine :-)
The script in all theory should work fine...Once I force glibc to submit
to the inevitibility that it will build (Hey, it never hurts to threaten
a software package...)
Hmm. Other people have occasionally run into problems like this, see e.g.
http://www.x86-64.org/lists/discuss/msg03853.html
ooh, and this one:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-glibc/2003-07/msg00076.html
which says
"This indicates an interesting little build problem with current glibc,
as it would appear that you can't build a shared glibc without already
having glibc installed (crti.o is part of glibc). A likely workaround
is to first build glibc with --disable-shared, install, then rebuild."
No idea if that's accurate, or why I never ran into it.
I'll give the rebuilding idea a shot. I have fussed with glibc once
where I had to half-build gcc, install; half build glibc, install;
finish gcc, install; finish glibc, install; rebuild gcc, install;
rebuild glibc, install. That was not fun. It worked in the end, but
did absolutely nothing (meager attempts at a sparc64-toolchain (64-bit)).
I'm open to trying a dual-build cycle of glibc, hopefully I will not
have to resort to using make -k, but who knows. Wicked are the ways of
the glibc gremlins.
I wonder if a shared glibc is even necessary. If the static glibc
works...hey... Have to try and if sucessful, see where to go from there.
In any case, it would probably be a good idea for you to
understand how shlib.lds is generated, and what it's for...
- Dan
I'm convinced it's an issue on i686. As I mentioned in my mail, the
shlib.lds file issue didn't occur on a sparc64 box, indicating slight
differences. I do recall once, when I last tried to build an i686->mips
cross-compiler manually, that a similar syntax error occurred in
"ld.so.lds", and a google search revealed that this error occured if the
gcc-bootstrap compiler was built with --disable-shared. This specific
issue was only on i686. Sparc, the build worked flawlessly, and I had a
functional sparc->mips cross-compiler, until it fell into disuse and I
deleted it. I think it was gcc-3.2.3 and glibc-2.3.2, so it was fairly
modern.
Either way, I'll tinker with the dual-glibc build concept and report
back successes or failures. Maybe I'll be brave enough to bother the
libc-alpha ML about it and see what happens.
Thanks,
--Kumba
--
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world:
small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are
elsewhere." --Elrond
------
Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com