This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tuesday 30 October 2007, Nix wrote: > On 29 Oct 2007, Mike Frysinger uttered the following: > > On Monday 29 October 2007, Nix wrote: > >> CONFIGURE=$1 > >> shift > >> $CONFIGURE --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu "$@" > > > > dunno man ... i have CFLAGS="-O2 -march=i686" and targetting > > i686-pc-linux-gnu and it builds for me. > > Maybe this is a GCC version thing? Are you building with 4.2.x? of course ... your subject says "GCC 4.2.x" after all and using anything other than 4.2.2 would be silly considering the # of crap bugs in gcc-4.2.x so far > The behaviour of inlines has changed in 4.3.x (but not, one would have > thought, so much that redefining inlines with completely different > definitions would be acceptable). only "extern inline" is changing meaning, but glibc forces -fgnu89-inline onto the build system, so that doesnt matter > >> --build-id and --as-needed by default at link time, and the latter at > >> least is bad for the glibc testsuite. I have patches to allow glibc to > >> build with a default-on --build-id, if you want them, but they're so > >> trivial I thought nobody would care...) > > > > i'd check cvs head and if it's still broken, post the patch > > Checked with a tree pristine except for the following utterly trivial > patch (provided for completeness), which I need in order for configure > to run at all, because my installed Linux headers are stowed like > everything else and thus are expected to be symlinks. (Also the check > might be considered wrong: `make install' won't destroy the target of > the symlinks if you install in the recommended way, by `make install > install_root=somewhere-else' and then using your packaging system to > move it into place. It will if you just use `make install', but hasn't > Ulrich said over and over again that anyone doing that deserves what > they get?): nowadays, you should not have symlinks in /usr/include for your kernel headers ... are you saying you're symlinks /usr/include/... -> /usr/src/linux/include/... ? also, you never patch configure, you patch configure.in and regenerating configure is implied. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |