From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19144 invoked by alias); 20 May 2003 12:40:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19038 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 12:40:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05ps.bigpond.com) (144.135.25.137) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2003 12:40:28 -0000 Received: from there ([144.135.25.81]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta05ps Jul 16 2002 22:47:55) with SMTP id HF6R7C00.1KX; Tue, 20 May 2003 22:40:24 +1000 Received: from WYPP-p-144-134-3-9.prem.tmns.net.au ([144.134.3.9]) by psmam05.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.2g 101/30298754); 20 May 2003 22:40:24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: John Sincock Reply-To: jss@au.mensa.org To: Janis Johnson Subject: Re: extremely disappointing bootstrap problems building gcc on linux :( (probably solved) Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:40:00 -0000 References: <200305171200.h4HC0acA251822@e35.co.us.ibm.com> <20030519123533.A3323@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20030519123533.A3323@us.ibm.com> Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20030520124000.i12GtWyQCNu2I81B3-uyniZCZXOvJh_cBo8J3jV-pE4@z> Hi Janis Actually I wasnt building in the source directory. I was building in a separate directory as recommended. On Tuesday 20 May 2003 05:05 am, you wrote: > It looks as if you are building in the source directory; is that > correct? The installation producedures strongly recommend that GCC be > built in a separate directory, e.g. Yesterday I managed to build just the 3.3 C compiler (using --enable-languages=c), without any problems at all, using gcc 2.95.3 ... So, it looks like it was just my glibc, ruining the bootstrap of g++: The thing that threw me was the successful build report for 3.2.2, from someone with mandrake 8.2, glibc-2.2.4-26.2mdk So it looked to me as if my glibc-2.2.4-25mdk would probably be ok... I wouldnt have thought it likely there would be any important changes between my glibc-2.2.4-25mdk and the successful glibc-2.2.4-26.2mdk ... obviously there is though. I expect I will have no problems building the full gcc 3.3 with all languages enabled, when i have upgraded my glibc and tried again. I will probably do that this weekend and send in a quick report to this list if it is succesful... Thanks again to all who made any suggestions etc John