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: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:23:34 +0100
- 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> <CAAiZkiB6azOhjG1KwEMTSkJRga=6ONL63HW5q23nxCgSahFaNQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFDA52 dot 8000903 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiBMmLGrYgb0kE2CSCJnpRtRa3ZBa1x+2jVVpBjaAZnozQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51EFF7AE dot 8070301 at redhat dot com> <CAMZ=zj7wQ0ELaYZezrYcgaFrYD-2_5yRUDpxeYh6p59ypi4nCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F0DF1F dot 80207 at redhat dot com> <CAMZ=zj6hVKDWLuatcrOLYOiVxKhfjJ=+8wvEn0kgjGBEoi-ENw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51F23ADC dot 5080905 at redhat dot com> <CAMZ=zj7bbLavRh_3twVmoc-TUa20GniA9zWBOXaMFQu2iwKUHQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 27 July 2013 14:56, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> GCC can detect at configure time that it will fail. It is clearly
>> a computable problem. It's a matter of someone doing it rather than
>> insisting that the world should change to suit them.
>
> GCC 4.8.1 will fail to compile on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu that has
> all the programs that Prerequisites in the Installation instructions
> lists. That I install some random package not needed to build C
> programs is not listed as a prerequisite in the documentation.
It's not "some random package" it's the C library, and it is needed to
compile 32-bit C programs.
The fact it's not listed as a prerequesite has already been pointed
out as a problem with the docs.
> I don't
> regard objecting to that is a matter of the world should change to
> suit me, rather as GCC not compiling on a system that it lists as a
> primary platform and is one of the most common targets for it. (It,
> BTW, does not suffice to add --disable-multilibs.)
What do you mean it does not suffice? Do you mean it's not a good
enough solution, or it doesn't actually solve the problem? If the
latter, did you try spelling it correctly, --disable-multilib
(singular)?
In any case, the point stands: someone needs to do the work, insisting
on it being done doesn't do it.