This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
- From: David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 05:26:27 -0700
- Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
- References: <CAMZ=zj40GLLXB0toTGhpJihm--eMYMd643SOVGcPUg+LpRuZ8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EF8D98 dot 3060005 at redhat dot com> <CAMZ=zj67PA=yYGnkCZmG3Yet45r5=f=HvWcu6p_v2VgNfo--4w at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFB70C dot 3050309 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> I would just install GCC's build dependencies and build with the
> defaults.
I'm glad you have infinite hard-drive space. I rather wish fewer
developers did, as well as those infinitely fast computers they seem
to have; perhaps they would have more empathy with my day-to-day
computing needs.
> There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems
> and real workloads.
Yes, there is. Both in this thread, and on bugzilla, people with real
systems, in my case a well-stocked development system, have said they
started compiling gcc and after hours the compile has failed without
even an explanation, and people have shrugged, and said what do you
want us to do about it? If a feature causes failure on real systems
like that, then disabling it by default, even if it's used by a
significant minority of users, should be considered. Yes, it would be
better to leave multilibs on and give people building without 32-bit
libraries a proper error message up front, but leaving it as is is not
making it work with real systems; it's causing real people to pull
their hair out or give up on trying to build GCC.
--
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.