matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jun 6 13:07:58 PDT 2011
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:59:19 +0100, Andrew Benton <b3nton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:55:21 -0600
> Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> I guess the first question is, has anyone else seen this issue?
> No, I don't get that. It could be because I've been using eglibc for a
> while. It could also be an architecture thing; I'm using x86_64, are
> you using i686?
I suspect it's because of the arch differences, I'm on i686 here.
> However, when I try to compile it the build fails like so:
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.21 internal error, aborting at
> ../../binutils-2.21/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c line 2764 in
> /usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.
> Apparently this is a bug in binutils' ld that is fixed in
I don't see this error, again presumably because of being on i686.
> I have tested binutils-2.21.51 and glibc-2.14 compiles fine with it.
> Current firefox from mercurial also compiles with binutils-2.21.51.
> With binutils-2.21 current firefox fails to build in a similar way to
> glibc-2.14. I have built my current system with binutils-2.21.51 it
> seems to work fine and solves those 2 compile failures for me.
So, it looks like if I just commit my change to upgrade Glibc this is
going to break x86_64 users. I'd prefer for us not to use HJL's binutils
for the reasons already outlined at  but we may have to consider it
in this case.
 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html#hjl-binutilsDo you have a pointer to the binutils-2.21.51
More information about the lfs-dev