Lapo <lapo_pasqui@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi all,
> I've got a problem in building a cross compiler for an IBM powerpc.
> I successefully built the binutils (versione 2.13.92) and installed them under
> the ~/cross_compiler/Sources/install directory.
>
> I've then built the glibc 2.3.2 library using a minimal gcc build and
> installed it under my ~/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glibc directory.
>
> I've finally tried to build the real fully-featured gcc (version 3.3)
> specifying the new built glibc as target libraries.
>
> The process runs for a while but it stops when it checks if the xgcc works.
> Looking at the
> ~/cross_compiler/Sources/build-real-gcc/powerpc-linux/libiberty/config.log
> I've noticed the compiler complain for some missing libraries.
> This is a snippet of the problem:
[snip]
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference
> to `_dl_lookup_versioned_symbol_skip@GLIBC_PRIVATE'
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference
> to `_rtld_global@GLIBC_PRIVATE'
[snip]
> GNU ld version 2.13.92 20030602
> Supported emulations:
> elf32ppclinux
> elf32ppc
> elf32ppcsim
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Could you try using a full release, such as binutils 2.14, as opposed
to a pre-release?
>
> It seems to look for the file ld.so.1, needed by
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/libc.so.6.
>
> But the file is in the same durectory as for libc.so.6
>
> [lapo@localhost libiberty]$ file
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/ld.so.1
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/ld.so.1: symbolic link to
> ld-2.3.2.so
>
> [lapo@localhost libiberty]$ file
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/ld-2.3.2.so
> /home/lapo/cross_compiler/Sources/inst_glib/lib/ld-2.3.2.so: ELF 32-bit MSB
> shared object, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
libc.so is supposed to prevent -this problem. From what I understand,
libc.so is a linker script that pulls in ld-2.3.2.so in the
proper way. Maybe this is a libc issue. I don't know; I'm guessing.
>
> I've also tried not using the --with-sysroot option at all when I configured
> the gcc, with no luck.
