From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26256 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2013 07:13:39 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26247 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2013 07:13:38 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:13:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r687DZaU022572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:13:35 -0400 Received: from zalov.cz (vpn1-6-183.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.183]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r687DW6A024923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:13:34 -0400 Received: from zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r687DVk8010729; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:13:31 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r687DTjJ010728; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:13:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:13:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Andrew Pinski , Jonathan Wakely , Bruce Korb , Andreas Schwab , GCC Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file Message-ID: <20130708071329.GM2336@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <51D83AAC.4080200@gmail.com> <87y59jo6yq.fsf@igel.home> <51D97472.8010704@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:55:15AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Personally, I don't see anything broken with that. The world we are > in today is very different from a decade ago. More than a decade ago, > a multilib build by default -probably- made sense; I don't see that today. But having multilib enabled by default on x86_64 is simply very highly desirable, checking that you have a (minimal, for gcc you pretty much only need glibc and libgcc development stuff) 32-bit environment is just one of the many items you need to check before you start building gcc. You also need gmp, mpfr, mpc development (headers+libraries), flex, bison, texinfo, ..., lots of this isn't installed by default. Jakub