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.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: bad ld64.so

From: Jean-Christophe Dubois <jdubois at mc dot com>
To: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:27:55 +0200
Subject: Re: bad ld64.so
Organization: Mercury Computer Systems
References: <1089380212.1947.62.camel@fr-jdubois1.ad.mc.com> <40EEA642.2090006@kegel.com>

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 16:05, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Painful, isn't it?
> Tools like strace or gdb could help.  You might need to add printf's to
> the code to see where it dies.

The one gdb/strace I have are 32 bits and don't seem to help that much
in my case. I could recompile them in 64 bits but then I would be unable
to run them (because of ld64.so). Unless I compile them in static mode
...

Well maybe glibc 2.3.2 is a bit outdated for PPC 970 and some support is
missing. It seems to be aver 1 year old. We are going to try the latest
from CVS just to check.

BTW, it seems that in (future) glibc 2.3.3, a new test for "altivec" was
added in configure which make the crosstool "build_gcc_header" hack fail
(for G5 at least).

Regards

JC

-- 
Jean-Christophe Dubois <jdubois@mc.com>
Mercury Computer Systems

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bad ld64.so
  - From: Daniel Kegel

References:
- bad ld64.so
  - From: Jean-Christophe Dubois
- Re: bad ld64.so
  - From: Dan Kegel

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