Another problem in current -dev

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop73 at
Wed Sep 1 12:24:19 PDT 2010

On 1 September 2010 14:41, Matthew Burgess <matthew at> wrote:

> I lied before [0] and I do see this.  Why are we using 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH' instead
> of --disable-libgomp in pass2 as we do in pass 1? (yes, I'm well aware that it was
> me that committed r9254 that added this as part of the upgrade to GCC-4.5.0).
> If noone has any objections, I'll change this to what we do in pass1 once I've
> tested it does the right thing.
> Regards,
> Matt.

 Actually, I'm not that fussed about doing this either way - for some
reason r9254 had never landed in my gmail inbox.  Using
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is arguably as educational as disabling libgomp,

 I'm more concerned about perl:
On 32-bit x86 you can include objects compiled without -fPIC into a
shared library, on x86_64 you cannot do that.

On x86_64 -Duseshrplib does the right thing, but I suspect that
on 32-bit x86 it might make the build slower and/or bigger.

After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list