This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Segfault while building glibc 2.2

To: Alexander Haväng <eel at musiknet dot se>
Subject: Re: Segfault while building glibc 2.2
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
Date: 14 Nov 2000 13:08:24 -0800
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <20001114155633.A17908@ljudo.shortlist.se><20001114190413.A13113@neumann.cs.elte.hu><20001114215854.A19078@ljudo.shortlist.se>
Reply-To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)

Alexander Haväng <eel@musiknet.se> writes:

> The problem was not with binutils, it was with i686 optimization.
> If I changed CFLAGS from "-march=i686 -mcpu=i686 -O2", to just "-O2"
> when compiling glibc, everything was fine.
> 
> So to you people running gcc 2.95.2, don't try to squeeze out
> any extra i686 cycles with glibc just yet :)

I'm doing this all the time.  Not really with 2.95.2 but with the
compilers I'm having here (2.96-based).  The one from RH7 for instance
works just fine.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

References:
- Segfault while building glibc 2.2
  - From: Alexander Haväng
- Re: Segfault while building glibc 2.2
  - From: Szalkai Akos
- Re: Segfault while building glibc 2.2
  - From: Alexander Haväng

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]