From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23834 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2013 11:06:52 -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 23825 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2013 11:06:52 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KHOP_THREADED,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mailgw13.technion.ac.il) (132.68.225.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:06:51 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMAAP2c91GERAHAl2dsb2JhbABbhxu6f4EdFg4BAQEBAQgWBzyCJAEBBSMVPAQBEAsOCgICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0BBQIBAYgMpyGJZ4gHgSiOVgeCZYEiA4kkox4 Received: from techunix.technion.ac.il ([132.68.1.192]) by mailgw13.technion.ac.il with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2013 14:06:41 +0300 Received: from tp-veksler.localdomain (techunix.technion.ac.il [132.68.1.192]) by techunix.technion.ac.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADAD2A1268; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:06:41 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <51F79E41.9040302@tx.technion.ac.il> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:06:00 -0000 From: Michael Veksler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Starner CC: Andrew Haley , Bruce Korb , FX , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "jwakely.gcc@gmail.com" Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file References: <51F66CA9.4040803@redhat.com> <51F67A08.2070709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00443.txt.bz2 On 07/30/2013 07:50 AM, David Starner wrote: > Sorry about the blank message; I accidentally hit the wrong button. > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important >> to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch." > We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejected in favor of a > hypothetical patch, and years down the road, the program still has the > problem. The people who blocked the quick patch, naturally, never > bothered trying to write the patch they wanted. > >> That's a mistranslation. It means that there are other criteria >> beyond some people having trouble. Such as, we really want multilibs >> to be built. This is an interesting conflict of requirements. I see the point of both sides, being a developer on one side and being a user on the other. I really appreciate the fact that I got a clear message telling me to install mpc. I would have hated needing to google for a cryptic error message. How about a middle-ground, not aiming at cross compilation? If --enable-multilib or --disable-multilib are passed then things are performed as today, more or less. If these flags are not explicitly given then gcc has to do something different: If the system compiler is GCC then 'configure' tries if the system GCC can build i686/x86-64/x32/etc. If the system gcc creates workable executables then all is fine and 'configure' proceeds to a multilib build. Otherwise an error will be emitted saying something like: " I can't figure out if your system has [???] development libraries. If you have [???] then rerun configure with --enable-multilib If you don't have [???] then you should rerun configure with --disable-multilib You should note that if you pass --enable-multilib despite having no [???] development libraries, then you would likely get the following error at the last stages of bulid: gnu/stubs-[???].h: No such file " This should be relatively simple to implement, and will catch most cases. I guess that a native English speaker can phrase something more readable and welcoming. Michael