Re: Building GCC Failed: stubs-32.h missing

[ronf <ron@dock.net>]

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.