bad ld64.so

Jean-Christophe Dubois jdubois@mc.com
Fri Jul 9 15:27:00 GMT 2004


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Well maybe glibc 2.3.2 is a bit outdated for PPC 970 and some support is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



More information about the crossgcc mailing list