gcc-4.3.2 build fails

Ken Moffat ken at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Nov 5 10:55:41 PST 2008


On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 01:55:25AM -0800, Trent Shea wrote:
> On Saturday 01 November 2008 23:59:36 John Frankish wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, due to the fact that the ps3 has a 64-bit
> > cpu/kernel and 32-bit os, I would need to cross-compile to get either
> > a 64-bit os or a 32-bit os? Which would be better to use on the host
> > system - the ydl-6 gcc-4.1.1. or IMB cell SDK-3 ppu-gcc?
> 
> I don't have any experience with this; I have not looked at the cell 
> processor in any great detail, but if it is anything like the amd64, 
> which allows you to run 32bit kernel/os, you should be able to boot a 
> 32bit distro and build away following the LFS instructions.
> 
 Or, if it's anything like the various versions of the 970 ('G5' in
apple speak) the kernel will refuse to build unless you set it for
64-bits (and have a 64-bit (cross-) gcc (C only) and binutils.

 I've done that in the past for ppc (32) userspace on ppc64.  Some
packages in the base system may produce obscure issues doing that,
so not all of my builds succeeded.

> Whichever you choose it will have to be based on a little bit of 
> research, and usage analysis.
> 

 Dunno about the usage analysis (a lot of us build our own systems
"because we can" or "because it's there"), but research is
definitely needed.  'linux32' can be helpful if configure thinks
it's on a 64-bit machine.

 As was said earlier, clfs might be (a little) more useful - I'm not
willing to talk about the detail here, it's definitely O/T (we
haven't even got x86_64 into LFS yet).

 For a machine with only limited memory, I guess building a 32-bit
userspace is probably a lot more practical than 64-bit (e.g. the
toolchain packages build much bigger files on 64-bit powerpc than on
x86).

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list