From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21186 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2013 10:32:40 -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 21129 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2013 10:32:39 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,TW_EK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-lb0-f182.google.com) (209.85.217.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:32:38 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r11so333422lbv.41 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.167.100 with SMTP id zn4mr16215410lbb.44.1374661950413; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.71.10 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51EF8D98.3060005@redhat.com> References: <51EF8D98.3060005@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file From: David Starner To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00346.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley 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.