From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6751 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2013 22:54:55 -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 6726 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jul 2013 22:54:55 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-we0-f182.google.com) (74.125.82.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 22:54:54 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u55so2889732wes.41 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:54:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.249.129 with SMTP id yu1mr39184875wjc.10.1374965685760; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.5.3 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:54:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <51EF8D98.3060005@redhat.com> <51EFB70C.3050309@redhat.com> <51EFDA52.8000903@redhat.com> <51EFF7AE.8070301@redhat.com> <51F0DF1F.80207@redhat.com> <51F23ADC.5080905@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 22:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: David Starner , Andrew Haley , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 27 July 2013 14:56, David Starner wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> GCC can detect at configure time that it will fail. It is clearly >>> a computable problem. It's a matter of someone doing it rather than >>> insisting that the world should change to suit them. >> >> GCC 4.8.1 will fail to compile on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu that has >> all the programs that Prerequisites in the Installation instructions >> lists. That I install some random package not needed to build C >> programs is not listed as a prerequisite in the documentation. > > It's not "some random package" it's the C library, and it is needed to > compile 32-bit C programs. > > The fact it's not listed as a prerequesite has already been pointed > out as a problem with the docs. Although that is an improvement, it is still far away from solving the problem. I read all the arguments, it still looks wrong to me. > >> I don't >> regard objecting to that is a matter of the world should change to >> suit me, rather as GCC not compiling on a system that it lists as a >> primary platform and is one of the most common targets for it. (It, >> BTW, does not suffice to add --disable-multilibs.) > > What do you mean it does not suffice? Do you mean it's not a good > enough solution, or it doesn't actually solve the problem? If the > latter, did you try spelling it correctly, --disable-multilib > (singular)? See, this is also another trap (yep, it happened to me long ago on multiple occasions). > In any case, the point stands: someone needs to do the work, insisting > on it being done doesn't do it.