From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10981 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2012 17:54:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 10956 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2012 17:54:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.210.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:54:07 +0000 Received: by iaag37 with SMTP id g37so6392654iaa.20 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.10.200 with SMTP id k8mr2901237igb.27.1333475647228; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([130.15.4.220]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k8sm16026730igz.4.2012.04.03.10.54.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: compiling gcc 2.95.3 under ubuntu 10.04.2, x86_64 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Roman Suvorov <4rvs19@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:54:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0DBE26B8-D374-4A03-A9D2-CFA70B62453C@gmail.com> References: <6FEBD529-7499-4418-9672-E30ECE4EBE30@gmail.com> <4F7ACF32.8010400@redhat.com> To: Richard Guenther Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 Hi Richard, Could you please provide some more instructions on how you got your 2.95 bu= ild using GCC 3? I just tried using GCC 3.4.6 (from http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/amd64/g= cc-3.4-base/download) and build from source using this command: CC=3D../gcc-3.4/bin/gcc-3.4 CFLAGS=3D-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3D0 ./configure --pr= efix=3D~/gcc-2.95.3 --enable-languages=3Dc,c++ --enable-threads=3Dposix --e= nable-shared --host i386-pc-linux-gnu It dies right away because it can't find cc1. I got the cc1 executable from= the corresponding cpp 3.4.6 package (http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/amd6= 4/cpp-3.4/download) and placed it in the same bin directory as the gcc-3.4 = executable, but still nothing. As you can probably guess I've never build GCC from source before.. but I c= an right away spot that the target host is i386 - I'm assuming that's due t= o the fact that GCC 2.95 doesn't even support x86_64? Regards, Roman. On 03-Apr-2012, at 6:30 , Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 04/02/2012 06:29 PM, Roman Suvorov wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> Not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, feel free to = point me in the right direction. >>=20 >> Redirect to gcc-help. >>=20 >>> I'm looking into the evolution of Linux kernel and this requires me >>> to build some ancient releases (as old as 2.4.0) from source using >>> GCC. I have gcc 4.4.3-4ubuntu5 installed on my lab machine but it's >>> incompatible with these old sources, and the "lowest common >>> denominator" would be gcc 2.95.3, so I've been trying to compile it >>> from source - so far with little success. >>=20 >>> It's hard but not impossible - done before by this guy: >>> http://www.trevorpounds.com/blog/?p=3D111&cpage=3D1#comment-102. I >>> followed all of his suggestions but so far hasn't had much luck - >>> most recent attempt dies with the following message: >>=20 >>> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: error in pic/cstrmain.o(.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_= hdr table will be created. >>>=20 >>> The URL above contains a link to my stdout/stderr logs too. Has anyone = here tried compiling such an old version of GCC? Any advice/help would be g= reatly appreciated. >>=20 >> It's going to be hard. gcc 2.95 doesn't support using x86_64 as a host, >> so you're going to have to build in in a 32-bit virtual machine or by >> using mock. >>=20 >> You'll have other problems too. gcc back then wasn't so standards- >> clean as it is now; we have a lot of warnings and better diagnostics >> that have allowed us to clean up gcc. I don't know why you got that >> particular message, and as I said I can't look at your logs. I might >> have a try myself to build gcc 2.95 later today. >=20 > You can have success with only minor patching when you stage a 3.x > release inbetween and use that to compile 2.95. At least that is how > I created my 2.95 build ;) >=20 > Richard. >=20 >> Andrew.