GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

[william]

Hi,
        After I built GCC-3.0.1 compiler,I want to use it to compile
glibc-2.2.4,when configuring:
        CC=mipsel-linux-gcc AR=mipsel-linux-ar
RANLIB=mipsel-linux-ranlib BUILD_CC=gcc ../configure --prefix=/usr/local
--host=mipsel-linux --enable-add-ons=linuxthreads --enable-profile
        compiler told me below message:
        .......
    checking for mig... mig
configure: warning:
*** These auxiliary programs are missing or too old: msgfmt
*** some features will be disabled.
*** Check the INSTALL file for required versions.
*** This version of GNU libc cannot be compiled by GCC 3.x.
*** GCC 3.x will generate a library that is binary incompatible to
*** older and future releases of GNU libc.
*** You should compile this GNU libc release by an older GCC version
*** or wait for the next GNU libc release.
*** If you really mean to use GCC 3.x, run configure again
*** using the extra parameter `--disable-sanity-checks'.
            What does  it mean?GCC-3.0.1 can't compile glibc-2.2.4
Best regards
       william 24/9/2001

Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi,

[snip]

>             What does  it mean?GCC-3.0.1 can't compile glibc-2.2.4

No, it can't, unfortunately.
Neither 2.95.3 or any other officially releasead GCC is completely ok, for
that matter.
To the best of my knowldedge you may:
1- Wait for the first 3.0.x/2.2.x couple certified as compatible (a couple
of months away?)
2- Apply a couple of patches to 2.95.3 (see, f..i,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01985.html ) or download a 2.95.4
snapshot (or wait for 2.95.4 itself)
3- Use 2.96-RH

(Personally, I chose 2- and everything went fine)

If someone in the know (f.i., H.J. Lu, A. Jaeger, J. Jelinek) would like to
post an update on this obnoxious issue we  - the users of both those GNU
packages - would all be very grateful!

Regards,
Paolo Carlini.

Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

[Andreas Jaeger]

william <william@zh.t2-design.com> writes:

> Hi,
>         After I built GCC-3.0.1 compiler,I want to use it to compile
> glibc-2.2.4,when configuring:
>         CC=mipsel-linux-gcc AR=mipsel-linux-ar
> RANLIB=mipsel-linux-ranlib BUILD_CC=gcc ../configure --prefix=/usr/local
> --host=mipsel-linux --enable-add-ons=linuxthreads --enable-profile
>         compiler told me below message:
>         .......
>     checking for mig... mig
> configure: warning:
> *** These auxiliary programs are missing or too old: msgfmt
> *** some features will be disabled.
> *** Check the INSTALL file for required versions.
> *** This version of GNU libc cannot be compiled by GCC 3.x.
> *** GCC 3.x will generate a library that is binary incompatible to
> *** older and future releases of GNU libc.
> *** You should compile this GNU libc release by an older GCC version
> *** or wait for the next GNU libc release.
> *** If you really mean to use GCC 3.x, run configure again
> *** using the extra parameter `--disable-sanity-checks'.
>             What does  it mean?GCC-3.0.1 can't compile glibc-2.2.4

There are close interactions between GCC and GLIBC which haven't been
solved completly yet for GCC 3.  Just don't compile glibc with GCC 3,
wait for a future release.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

Re: GCC-3.0.1 can't compile Glibc-2.2.4

[william]

"H . J . Lu" wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 11:25:22AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >             What does  it mean?GCC-3.0.1 can't compile glibc-2.2.4
> >
> > No, it can't, unfortunately.
> > Neither 2.95.3 or any other officially releasead GCC is completely ok, for
> > that matter.
> > To the best of my knowldedge you may:
> > 1- Wait for the first 3.0.x/2.2.x couple certified as compatible (a couple
> > of months away?)
> > 2- Apply a couple of patches to 2.95.3 (see, f..i,
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01985.html ) or download a 2.95.4
> > snapshot (or wait for 2.95.4 itself)
> > 3- Use 2.96-RH
> >
> > (Personally, I chose 2- and everything went fine)
> >
> > If someone in the know (f.i., H.J. Lu, A. Jaeger, J. Jelinek) would like to
> > post an update on this obnoxious issue we  - the users of both those GNU
> > packages - would all be very grateful!
> >
>
> Jakub's change is almost ok to me. My only objection is dlopening
> libgcc_s.so.1. I don't think it should be included unless it has
> been verified to work as intended. But it seems noone has tested if
> it works when the ABI of libgcc_s.so.1 changes, which is the main
> purpose of dlopening libgcc_s.so.1, and someone believes the ABI change
> of libgcc_s.so.1 which dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 is trying to address is
> very unlikely to happen. Given those, I suggest
>
> 1. Check in Jakub's change, excluding dlopening libgcc_s.so.1. Do a
> proper dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 later when necessary. Or
> 2. Check if dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 works, then check in the patch
> with a working dlopening libgcc_s.so.1 scheme.
>
> H.J.

Hi,
        I check the patch against gcc-2.95.3,I'm wondering if it's only used for
i386 and alpha target.I wanted to get GCC-2.95.3 with those patch can work on
MIPS platform.Could it be available?
        Thanks for advance
            william 26/9/2001