Re: bad ld64.so

[Jean-Christophe Dubois <jdubois at mc dot com>]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 21:07, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Dubois wrote:
> > The one gdb/strace I have are 32 bits and don't seem to help that much
> > in my case. I could recompile them in 64 bits but then I would be unable
> > to run them (because of ld64.so). Unless I compile them in static mode
> 
> Static is good!  Do they work then, though?

Yes static do work.

> > Well maybe glibc 2.3.2 is a bit outdated for PPC 970 and some support is
> > missing. It seems to be aver 1 year old. We are going to try the latest
> > from CVS just to check.
> > 
> > BTW, it seems that in (future) glibc 2.3.3, a new test for "altivec" was
> > added in configure which make the crosstool "build_gcc_header" hack fail
> > (for G5 at least).

glibc 2.3.3 (form CVS head) do work OK for G5 if you remove the Posix
thread part that is not yet very well supported on G5 it seems.

With glibc 2.3.3 the ld64.so is "valid" as far as we can tell.


> No doubt.  Patches welcome.
> - Dan
-- 
Jean-Christophe Dubois <jdubois@mc.com>
Mercury Computer Systems


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com