From: <llewelly@198.dsl.xmission.com>
To: Eric Gravel <wildgod@hotmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:13:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001240005240.5997-100000@198.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20000123185440.20294.qmail@hotmail.com>
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eric Gravel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to upgrade my c compiler, gcc version pgcc-2.91.66
> 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release), for the past day now and until this
> morning I had no success.
>
> Last time I tried compiling I was getting the following error:
> "xgcc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11."
> I manage to overcome this problem by compiling a new version
> of make though I don't think this matter, binutils 2.9.1 and glibc
> 2.1.2 with the crypt & linuxthread add on.
gcc getting Fatal signal 11 is often (but not always) a sign of bad RAM or
other bad hardware. See http://www.BitWizard.nl/sig11/ .
>
> Now when I compiled gcc 2.95.2 I used the following commands
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr
It is advisable to build gcc in a directory separate from the sources:
$mkdir ../objdir
$cd ../objdir
$../gcc-2.95.2/configure [configure args]
More importantly, '--exec-prefix=/usr' sets the directory binary
executables will be placed in to '/usr' . That is, gcc, g++, g77, etc,
will all end up in /usr ... *not* /usr/bin . If you want them in
/usr/bin, '--prefix=/usr' alone is good enough; by defualt they will
end up in {prefix}/bin .
> make bootstrap
> make check
> make install
>
> Read the installation document, I should find my binaries in /usr/bin
> right?
No. --exec-prefix overrides the default behavior.
> Looking at the content matching the date (Jan 23 in the wee
> hours 3am) there's no gcc or anything that looks like a compiler
> executable. The only thing close is called c++filt. I doubt that is it.
>
>
>
> So, does anyone else have a suggestion as to where I should be looking
> or even better, what commands I should have used to compile and
> install gcc 2.95.2? Is there a log of what configure & make perform?
>
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> Eric A. Gravel
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: <llewelly@198.dsl.xmission.com>
To: Eric Gravel <wildgod@hotmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001240005240.5997-100000@198.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20000401000000.meEh4j7HrqAMNY82Ollq4zJ0lSta-lBg6FoKiFHAleI@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20000123185440.20294.qmail@hotmail.com>
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eric Gravel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to upgrade my c compiler, gcc version pgcc-2.91.66
> 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release), for the past day now and until this
> morning I had no success.
>
> Last time I tried compiling I was getting the following error:
> "xgcc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11."
> I manage to overcome this problem by compiling a new version
> of make though I don't think this matter, binutils 2.9.1 and glibc
> 2.1.2 with the crypt & linuxthread add on.
gcc getting Fatal signal 11 is often (but not always) a sign of bad RAM or
other bad hardware. See http://www.BitWizard.nl/sig11/ .
>
> Now when I compiled gcc 2.95.2 I used the following commands
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr
It is advisable to build gcc in a directory separate from the sources:
$mkdir ../objdir
$cd ../objdir
$../gcc-2.95.2/configure [configure args]
More importantly, '--exec-prefix=/usr' sets the directory binary
executables will be placed in to '/usr' . That is, gcc, g++, g77, etc,
will all end up in /usr ... *not* /usr/bin . If you want them in
/usr/bin, '--prefix=/usr' alone is good enough; by defualt they will
end up in {prefix}/bin .
> make bootstrap
> make check
> make install
>
> Read the installation document, I should find my binaries in /usr/bin
> right?
No. --exec-prefix overrides the default behavior.
> Looking at the content matching the date (Jan 23 in the wee
> hours 3am) there's no gcc or anything that looks like a compiler
> executable. The only thing close is called c++filt. I doubt that is it.
>
>
>
> So, does anyone else have a suggestion as to where I should be looking
> or even better, what commands I should have used to compile and
> install gcc 2.95.2? Is there a log of what configure & make perform?
>
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> Eric A. Gravel
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-01-23 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-01-23 10:55 Eric Gravel
2000-01-23 23:13 ` llewelly [this message]
2000-04-01 0:00 ` llewelly
2000-04-01 0:00 ` Eric Gravel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.10.10001240005240.5997-100000@198.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=llewelly@198.dsl.xmission.com \
--cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=wildgod@hotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).