From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: To: Eric Gravel 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 Message-id: References: <20000123185440.20294.qmail@hotmail.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-01/msg00155.html 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 > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: To: Eric Gravel 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 Message-ID: References: <20000123185440.20294.qmail@hotmail.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00155.html Message-ID: <20000401000000.meEh4j7HrqAMNY82Ollq4zJ0lSta-lBg6FoKiFHAleI@z> 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 >