Building on Fedora
Dave Korn
dave.korn@artimi.com
Tue Sep 20 16:27:00 GMT 2005
----Original Message----
>From: Mike Joyce
>Sent: 20 September 2005 17:16
> I have had the same problem. What I found was that the glibc configure
> script was testing for a version of gcc 3.2.* or later. It does not test
> for a major number above 3 so the test fails. I do not know where this
> test is initiated, but once you have reached that point you can patch
> the configure script and run demo-*.sh with the --nounpack option added
> to your desired toolchain build.
>
> This patch worked for me:
>
> --- configure.orig 2005-09-19 21:31:45.000000000 -0400
> +++ configure 2005-09-19 21:32:13.000000000 -0400
> @@ -2274,6 +2274,8 @@
> '') ac_prog_version="v. ?.??, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
> 3.[2-9]*)
> ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
> + 4.*)
> + ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
> *) ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
>
> esac
Hey, as long as we're at it, why not be a bit more generous and assume
that all future versions of gcc will be good?
--- configure.orig 2005-09-19 21:31:45.000000000 -0400
+++ configure 2005-09-19 21:32:13.000000000 -0400
@@ -2274,6 +2274,8 @@
'') ac_prog_version="v. ?.??, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
3.[2-9]*)
ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
+ [4-9].*)
+ ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
*) ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
esac
Heh, I guess there was that terrible regression in gcc-408.6.2 back in the
year 3621, but let's not worry about that for the moment.....
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
------
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