Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

[David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
>> I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
>> have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
>> building primarily for myself, and if I did have to target a 32-bit
>> environment, I'd likely have to mess with more stuff then just the
>> compiler.
>
> No, you probably wouldn't.  Just use -m32 and you'd be fine.

That's assuming that the hypothetical 32-bit x86 system I was
targeting was running GNU libc6 2.17 (as well as whatever libraries I
need, with version numbers apropos of Debian Unstable.) Conceivable,
but not something I'd bet on. I've got 3 ARM (Android) computers
around, and 3 AMD-64 computers, and I can't imagine why I'd need an
x86 computer. There is one x86 program I run (zsnes), but if Debian
stopped carrying it, it probably wouldn't be worth the time to compile
it myself.

>> If you can't find a way to detect this error, I can't
>> imagine many people would have a problem with turning off multilibs on
>> x86-64; it's something of a minority setup.
>
> I don't think it is, really.

Really? Because my impression is that on Unix, the primary use of the
C compiler has always been to compile programs for the system the
compiler is running on. And x86-32 is a slow, largely obsolete chip;
it's certainly useful to emulate, but I suspect any developer who
needs to build for it knows that up-front and is prepared to deal for
it in the same way that someone who needs an ARM or MIPS compiler is.

> Anyone building GCC for themself has a reason for doing so.

At the current time, Debian's version of GNAT is built from older
sources then the rest of GCC; if I want a 4.8 version of GNAT, I have
to build it myself.

> Right, so it should be built the right way.

The right way? If I don't want to build support for obsolete systems I
don't use, I'm building it the wrong way? If I were building
ia64-linux-gnu, I wouldn't have to enable support for x86-linux-gnu,
but because I'm building amd64-linux-gnu, if I don't, I'm building it
the wrong way?

I don't see this resistance to making it work with real systems and
real workloads. This feature is not useful to many of us, and fails
the GCC build in the middle. That's not really acceptable.

-- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.