[lfs-dev] binutils, elfutils-0.175, objdump, linux kernel-4.19.12 (SVN-20190101) Follow-up

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 20:16:00 PST 2019


On 01/08/2019 08:52 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:18:36PM -0500, Jean-Marc Pigeon via lfs-dev wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Redone all chapter 6 with elfutils-0.173
>> (all things equal otherwise)
>> Kernel compilation is now OK.
>>
>> According:
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/61151
>>
>> Bug is in binutils, patch have been applied on git
>> but there is no binutils-2.31.2 (as fare I can see).
>>
>> My proposal is to have SVN to back track to elfutils-0.173
>> waiting for binutils next official release.
>>
>> comments?
>>
> 
> On the system where I most recently built LFS (but back in late
> November) I have elfutils-0.175 and binutils-2.31.1
> 
> I successfully built, and booted, both the 4.19.3 amd 4.20.0 kernels
> on that machine (as well as a 4.20-rc), using - as normal - the
> original kernel headers which were 4.19.3.  Too busy to try 5.0-rc1.
> 
> Looking at my scripts, for elfutils I currently ensure that my
> CFLAGS include '-g' (yeughh - my main purpose with CFLAGS is to
> strip debug info to save space since I'm rubbish as using gdb ;)
> and I assume that the book builds without specifying CFLAGS.  Maybe
> that is related, maybe it is a lingering result of some previous
> problem.
> 
> On all my previous systems, including 8.3, I have not seen any
> reason to update elfutils or binutils, so only that one system uses
> 0.175.
> 
> I don't have any objection to reverting to an older version of a
> package (currently using an older psutils), but at the moment I
> don't think one "doesn't build for me" (when it presumably did build
> for whoever updated those packages) is a persuasive reason.

I cannot duplicate the problem.

tar -xf linux-4.19.12.tar.xz
cd linux-4.19.12
cp /boot/config-4.18.5 .config
make oldconfig
make
make modules_install

worked without problem.

# CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is not set

Changing that to =y and running make caused the system to ask about 
couple of other DEBUG options (I took the defaults), but otherwise there 
were no reported problems.

   -- Bruce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list