Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures (fwd)

Anthony Borla ajborla at
Sun Feb 12 14:04:00 PST 2006

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Moffat" <zarniwhoop at>
To: <lfs-support at>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures (fwd)


> Whoops, dropped the list off the Cc.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:06:37 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ken Moffat <ken at>
> To: Anthony Borla <ajborla at>
> Subject: Re: Followup to: Chapter 6 binutils 'make check' failures
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Anthony Borla wrote:
> >> I wondered about the visibility tests when I saw the number of
> >> failures.  Yes, I've seen this, but I think it was on ppc64 multilib
> >> clfs!  The good news is that the basic system worked ok, as if the
> >> failure might be in the test code.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, Ken - that's the sort of reassurance I was definitely after :) !
> Since you most definitely aren't on ppc64, I would regard it
> as "well, it might work".  Of course, pretending to be on a 486
> isn't particularly common, so maybe that is the trigger.

Yes, specifying the build type as 'i486' when it is actually an 'i686'
would, I'm sure, be definitely classed as unusual. The reason I started to
do so was to ensure the generated code would run on an i486, particularly
after seeing repeated warnings from many configure scripts about setting the
'build' option.

I admit this decision was not based on a complete understanding of the
impact of the 'build' option [I'm a little new to the gcc-based
cross-compiling game], but was motivated simply by a desire to do everything
seemingly possible to ensure i486 code is generated [*]. Given the upward
compatibility of x86 CPU's it seemed a relatively benign, though perhaps,
ultimately misguided, action to take.

I've come this far with it, so I'll continue using it, and see where it
ultimately leads. If need be, I can always go back and rebuild. The beauty
of LFS is that, unlike activities like skydiving or basejumping, you can
always go back and start again if you make a mistake, or otherwise take a
wrong turn ;) !

> I did wonder if a recent kernel might be involved (I had to used
> 2.6.15-rc or newer on my ppc64, despite the warnings that udev
> ought to be upgraded), but apparently not.

I like relatively recent, but generally avoid bleeding edge, software,
especially critical software like a kernel.


Anthony Borla

[*] I've experienced considerable difficulty [not to mention wasted a lot of
time] getting newish RedHat Linux distributions running on a i486 platform,
so am determined that my LFS [and later BLFS] efforts will succeed.

More information about the lfs-support mailing list