Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?

Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?

[Eric Gravel]

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.

Now when I compiled gcc 2.95.2 I used the following commands
./configure --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr
make bootstrap
make check
make install

Read the installation document, I should find my binaries in /usr/bin
right?  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

Re: Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?

[llewelly]

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
> 

Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?

[Eric Gravel]

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.

Now when I compiled gcc 2.95.2 I used the following commands
./configure --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr
make bootstrap
make check
make install

Read the installation document, I should find my binaries in /usr/bin
right?  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

Re: Can't locate newly compiled 2.95.2 binaries!?

[llewelly]

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
>