This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/33603] configuration failure during native build
- From: "gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 4 Oct 2007 20:29:01 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/33603] configuration failure during native build
- References: <bug-33603-1000@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-10-04 20:29 -------
Subject: Re: configuration failure during native build
"dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
writes:
| ------- Comment #3 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2007-10-04 08:26 -------
| (In reply to comment #2)
|
| While looking for collect2, I
| > realized the path to ld (and as) had been misdetected. Explicit
| > specification of the path, --with-ld=/mingw/bin/ld.exe, let me have a
| > successful configuration. The buikd is now past the confiuguration step.
| > I hope there won't be anymore failure. Many thanks! Is this type of
| > failure documented somewhere?
|
|
| Explicit specification of the path to ld and as has bot been necessary
| on my native builds on WinXP host, using cygwin bash. But possibly I am
| just avoidng the problem by using 'identity' mounts -- mounts where the
| posix path equate to the DOS path on the current drive. eg, c:\mingw is
| mounted as /mingw. etc so both the posix tools (like exec in the ld
| scrtpt) and the native executables refer to the same path.
Hi Danny,
On my mahcine, I too have what you call `identity' mounts.
However, for some reasons, the path to ld is detected as:
c:/Docume~1/gdr/Desktop/sandbox/eval-build/i686-pc-mingw32/libstdc++-v3/c:/mingw/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.5/../../../../mingw32/bin/ld.exe
which is not right. I suspect the real path is
c:/mingw/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.5/../../../../mingw32/bin/ld.exe
but somehow it is appended to the build directory path. Furthermore, it
looks a very complicated path name.
Thanks for looking into this.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33603