RE: Building on Fedora

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

----Original Message----
>From: Mike Joyce
>Sent: 20 September 2005 17:16


> I have had the same problem. What I found was that the glibc configure
> script was testing for a version of gcc 3.2.* or later. It does not test
> for a major number above 3 so the test fails. I do not know where this
> test is initiated, but once you have reached that point you can patch
> the configure script and run demo-*.sh with the --nounpack option added
> to your desired toolchain build.
> 
> This patch worked for me:
> 
> --- configure.orig      2005-09-19 21:31:45.000000000 -0400
> +++ configure   2005-09-19 21:32:13.000000000 -0400
> @@ -2274,6 +2274,8 @@
>      '') ac_prog_version="v. ?.??, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
>      3.[2-9]*)
>         ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
> +    4.*)
> +       ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
>      *) ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
> 
>    esac



  Hey, as long as we're at it, why not be a bit more generous and assume
that all future versions of gcc will be good?


--- configure.orig      2005-09-19 21:31:45.000000000 -0400
+++ configure   2005-09-19 21:32:13.000000000 -0400
@@ -2274,6 +2274,8 @@
     '') ac_prog_version="v. ?.??, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
     3.[2-9]*)
        ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
+    [4-9].*)
+       ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, ok"; ac_verc_fail=no;;
     *) ac_prog_version="$ac_prog_version, bad"; ac_verc_fail=yes;;
 
   esac


  Heh, I guess there was that terrible regression in gcc-408.6.2 back in the
year 3621, but let's not worry about that for the moment.....

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


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