This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: compiling gcc 2.95.3 under ubuntu 10.04.2, x86_64
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roman Suvorov <4rvs19 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:30:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: compiling gcc 2.95.3 under ubuntu 10.04.2, x86_64
- References: <6FEBD529-7499-4418-9672-E30ECE4EBE30@gmail.com> <4F7ACF32.8010400@redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 06:29 PM, Roman Suvorov wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> Not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, feel free to point me in the right direction.
>
> Redirect to gcc-help.
>
>> I'm looking into the evolution of Linux kernel and this requires me
>> to build some ancient releases (as old as 2.4.0) from source using
>> GCC. I have gcc 4.4.3-4ubuntu5 installed on my lab machine but it's
>> incompatible with these old sources, and the "lowest common
>> denominator" would be gcc 2.95.3, so I've been trying to compile it
>> from source - so far with little success.
>
>> It's hard but not impossible - done before by this guy:
>> http://www.trevorpounds.com/blog/?p=111&cpage=1#comment-102. I
>> followed all of his suggestions but so far hasn't had much luck -
>> most recent attempt dies with the following message:
>
>> /usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: error in pic/cstrmain.o(.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created.
>>
>> The URL above contains a link to my stdout/stderr logs too. Has anyone here tried compiling such an old version of GCC? Any advice/help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> It's going to be hard. ?gcc 2.95 doesn't support using x86_64 as a host,
> so you're going to have to build in in a 32-bit virtual machine or by
> using mock.
>
> You'll have other problems too. ?gcc back then wasn't so standards-
> clean as it is now; we have a lot of warnings and better diagnostics
> that have allowed us to clean up gcc. ?I don't know why you got that
> particular message, and as I said I can't look at your logs. ?I might
> have a try myself to build gcc 2.95 later today.
You can have success with only minor patching when you stage a 3.x
release inbetween and use that to compile 2.95. At least that is how
I created my 2.95 build ;)
Richard.
> Andrew.