From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23211 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2012 14:54:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 23202 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2012 14:54:37 -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; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:54:24 +0000 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so8754310obb.0 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:54:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.222.74 with SMTP id qk10mr16869908obc.75.1328540063371; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:54:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from Deathwish.hagood ([74.221.200.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ml8sm18794938obc.0.2012.02.06.06.54.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (Deathwish [127.0.0.1]) by Deathwish.hagood (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7854DC7B8044; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:54:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from deathwish ([127.0.0.1]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user wowbaggr) by localhost with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:54:20 -0600 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:54:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Weird error cross-compiling glibc with binutils 2.22 or head From: david.hagood@gmail.com To: "Andreas Schwab" , jreiser@bitwagon.com Cc: binutils@sourceware.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/msg00048.txt.bz2 >What else did you change in the mean time? There is absolutely nothing of binutils involved when constructing the sed command. OK, let's start with the assumption that I am actually trying to follow ESR's "How to ask questions the smart way", and that I am doing my homework before coming to the list - if for no other reason than that I want to resolve my problem as quickly as possible, and waiting on the list is not conducive to that. Now, the question of "what else did you change" is a fair question. Let me put it like this: I can change which version of binutils I build as my cross-compiler tool chain to 2.20, and it builds. I change which version of binutils I build as my cross compiler tool chain to 2.22, and it breaks. That is ONE LINE in ONE MAKEFILE, which changes which tarball I unpack for the binutils sources. Nothing else - not my host compiler tool chain, not my host environment - changes. Yet, making that one change breaks the build. Now again, I realize that "post hoc" does not always mean "propter hoc", but when you change only one variable and the outcome changes, it is not unreasonable to suspect that variable is the key, and to pursue that. Since that variable is binutils, I am on this list. John: Thanks for a constructive suggestion. I've looked at both my native ld and the cross-ld. Neither contains the faulty line. And to recap: neither does ANY file in the build process - not Makerules, not Makefile, indeed NO FILE other than the generated linker script contains "__start__es" or "{subfreeres = .);" - confirmed by grepping the whole source and build tree. Nor are those strings anywhere in my native tool chain.