Ready for gcc-4 & cleaning up binutils source delete or not.

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 09:20:05 PDT 2005


Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 
>>Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for 
>>>the kernel builds etc
>>
>>Why?
> 
> 
> I'm just guessing here, but I would bet that it'll be similar to the gcc
> 2.95 / gcc 3.X upgrade.  The kernel documentation said to use 2.95 (and
> still does, in fact), so that's what we did, until it started causing
> problems with the NPTL tests.
> 

Just FYI, on Athlon XP, at least, the kernel (2.6.11,7) runs fine
compiled with gcc-4-rc1.  I had to fix a couple of GCC4-isms with a
patch that I got from the fedora site.

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/kernel/

I always hate it when the kernel boys tell us to use an old compiler, so
I do the 'my distro, my rules' thing.

I did try to build with Ryan's scripts yesterday, and got in a bit of a
pickle building glibc-2.3.5 for the cross toolchain.  I think it's more
likely my fingers and the aged grey mush driving them than Ryan's
scripts (ld couldn't find -lc in configure) - I know I need to do more
research on how the cross compiling method works. Today I have been
working as a flooring-fitter for the mother-in-law, so I'm nackered -
expect no progress.

R.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list