Andrew Haley wrote > On 02/13/2014 11:34 PM, ronf wrote: >> I was surprised that the procedure for building the glibc packages (from >> source) relied so heavily on glibc packages that were already installed. >> One >> great feature of a compiler collection like GCC is the ability of >> compilers >> to compile themselves from source. I was surprised that the build process >> was so dependent on kernel libraries. I can understand gcc using kernel >> libraries for its own internal operations, but I don't believe the build >> of >> a GCC source package should be including kernel source (headers) from >> outside the package or needing to link the compiled object code with >> kernel >> libraries other than those generated by part of the build. > > What kernel libraries are you talking about? Please be specific. > > Andrew. I am sorry I didn't check my messages for so long. Since GCC now builds easily, I don't see the errror messages naming the libraries and, thus, I don't know what libraries were missing. However, I do remember the procedure I used. First, since stubs-32.h was missing I copied stubs-64.h to stubs-32.h in an attempt to trick the build into continuing. (This was a mistake since it was unnecessary and wrong.) Second, I configured using the --enable-multilib option (another mistake). Third, I entered "make" and got error messages regarding missing libraries. I hope you will tell me there were no missing kernel libraries but just confusion caused by my unusual bad procedure. I hope GCC really does compile itself from source code without needing binary libraries other than libraries used only for the internal operations of the compiler used to build GCC. -- View this message in context: http://gcc.1065356.n5.nabble.com/Building-GCC-Failed-stubs-32-h-missing-tp1010178p1013143.html Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
