On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Cyd Haselton <chaselton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 28, 2014, Cyd Haselton <chaselton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Brian Drummond >> <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 18:33 -0500, Cyd Haselton wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 6:46 AM, <gcc-help-digest-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > No matter which config flags I use, the build keeps failing with >> >> > "/usr/local/bin/ld" this linker is not configured touse sysroots" >> >> > I've checked the specs for the ld at that location, and it does >> >> > support sysroot. >> >> > >> >> > What am I doing wrong? >> >> > First question would be : are you using those config flags to build >> >> > binutils (to support sysroots) and install it, then build gcc? >> >> >> >> Do I need to download the source for binutils and build it as well? >> > >> > I can't be certain and I was hoping my dumb question would elicit "of >> > course" or "no" from the real experts... >> > >> > But given the way binutils and the compiler have to interoperate, I >> > think it's likely that you do. That's the normal process when building >> > crosscompilers (which you aren't) so it may also be when you're >> > selecting unusual config options (which you are). >> > >> > Binutils is much faster to build than gcc so it's not a difficult >> > question to answer for yourself. Naively, I'd feed the same set of >> > config options to binutils and let it ignore the ones it doesn't need. >> > >> > Then having a "synchronised" version of ld etc in the same sysroot, you >> > could eliminate the --with-ld= option pointing at the other one. >> > >> > If you make progress that way, keep the list informed. >> > >> > - Brian >> > >> Initially sent this just to Brian, due to gmail's default quick reply >> settings: >> **************************************************** >> As suggested, I've downloaded source for binutils 2.23.2, unpacked and >> symlinked it in the gcc 4.7.0 source dir and re-run configure (minus >> the --with-ld=no and --with-ld=/path/to/ld options. I also added the >> BIONIC_LIBC #ifdef conditions to getpagesize.c in binutils/libiberty >> to move past the error thrown by that file. >> >> However, I'm now getting an error in bfd >> in function bfd_ar_hdr_from_filesystem >> ../../../gcc-4.7.0/binutils/bfd/archive.c:1866:7: error: pointer >> targets in passing argument 1 of 'time' differ in signedness >> [-Werror-pointer-sign] >> >> This is followed by >> /usr/local/sysroot/usr/include/time.h:40:17: note: expected 'time_t >> *' but argument is of type 'long unsigned int*' >> >> I vaguely remember having to make some modifications to a source file >> when porting GCC 4.8 to android, but it's been a while...I'd have to >> dig up prior posts and resurrect an archived VM. >> >> Any ideas before I do just that? >> >> UPDATE: Question above answered; there's a patch available for >> bfd/archive.c that involves a cast (?) for the problematic function, >> but I've now run into another error in binutils/bucomm.c >> >> ..binutils/bucomm.c: In function 'make_tempdir' >> ..binutils/bucomm.c:532:3: error: implicit declaration of function >> 'mkdtemp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> ..binutils/bucomm.c:532:3: error: return makes pointer from integer >> without a cast [-Werror] >> >> Looks like I'll be digging back into my C handbook. If someone knows >> of an existing patch, please save me from doing this. > > > I managed to work through the above errors by making changes to the binutils > config.h file. However I'm back to the same problem with a twist: if I > exclude the --with-sysroot configure option, the header > files...specifically stdio.h included from tsystem.h...can't be found. If I > include the --with-sysroot option, I get the same 'this linker not configured to use sysroots' error at the same point in the build process. Any help would be appreciated.
