This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bootstrap/3641: can not bootstrap on i386-linux and others without glibc - MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: bootstrap/3641: can not bootstrap on i386-linux and others without glibc - MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
- From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>
- Date: 29 Oct 2001 16:36:02 -0000
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Reply-To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>
The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/3641; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@mediaone.net>
To: gcc-gnats@gnu.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bootstrap/3641: can not bootstrap on i386-linux and others without glibc - MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:32:16 -0500
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:59:45AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> (if there's a better way to add info to a GNATS bug than Reply To All,
> without having a GNATS account, it would be nice if it was mentioned
> somewhere obvious.)
To append info to a GNATS entry, make sure you CC:
gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, and make sure that the Subject:
field of your e-mail contains the GNATS ID for the Problem Report,
ie.
"Subject: Re: Re: bootstrap/3641: can not bootstrap on....."
If you can figure out a good place to put this in documentation,
I'll write a patch for it.
> I talked to Richard Henderson about this, and for my problem (which
> involved glibc 2.2.3 or 2.2.4) the correct solution was to make a
> libc-headers package instead of modifying GCC. That probably doesn't
> help you. I have a patch to hardcode the data structures in question
> if you want it.
There is a patch very similar to what you are talking about,
but meant to address the problem of bootstrapping on
older versions of glibc.
I submitted this patch, to detect the existence of ucontext.h
in the configure script:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-10/msg01543.html
The next part of the patch, which I have not tested yet is
here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=4068&database=gcc
Does that patch look like it would work for your problem?
--
Craig Rodrigues
http://www.gis.net/~craigr
rodrigc@mediaone.net