From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25404 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2012 23:53:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25395 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2012 23:53:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com (HELO mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:52:59 +0000 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so6248837obb.0 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.132.105 with SMTP id ot9mr8474281obb.34.1328313178952; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from Deathwish.hagood ([74.221.200.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm3384377obc.5.2012.02.03.15.52.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.0.66] (chumley.hagood [10.16.0.66]) by Deathwish.hagood (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BD8C7B8044; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:52:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Weird error cross-compiling glibc with binutils 2.22 or head From: David Hagood To: Andreas Schwab Cc: binutils@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <34bc660d9f725c71ee7a72236bbdcd1f.squirrel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1328313176.2972.16.camel@chumley> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > The line is coming literally from the Makerules file. > > In any way, this has nothing to do with bintuils. You need to fix the > sed command not to put the erroneous line there. > > Andreas. > Did you miss the part in my first post, the bit I quoted in my second post, the bit where I said "I have no idea where that is coming from: it's not in any of the makefiles for binutils, glibc, or gcc" That includes ALL the files that drive make, including Makerules. Please, give me credit for some sense - were the problem in Makerules, I would have fixed it and moved on.