[lfs] error compiling gcc in Pass 1

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Fri Jun 12 09:15:59 PDT 2009

Justin Mattock wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Mike McCarty<Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Umm, I thought the explanation was pretty clear. What is there
>> about needing to build a compiler in order to build that needs
>> explaining?
>> Perhaps you mean the reason one needs to get the associated
>> packages and untar them in the gcc directory? That's simply
>> a matter of how the FSF decided to package gcc. You'd have
>> to ask them, not the LFS team.
>> Mike
> I didn't know you can put mpfr/gmp in the gcc source tree
> and have gcc build them automatically.
> (was aware of different languages that can be added).
> I'm happy with compile mpfr, and gmp separately, then
> compiling gcc,etc...

I didn't intend to say what you infer. I'm talking about
building gcc and what (apparently) it considers source
dependencies. I don't know why those sources need to be
there. I haven't supported gcc since about 1990 or so,
when I helped do a port to the Z8000 series of processors.

What I intended to say is that one would have to ask the
gcc dev team why those things need to be there. I suppose
if you wanted to you could go look at the sources to gcc
and see what it really wants from them. Then perhaps you
could figure out why they are packaged separately, even
though the C language build (appparently) depends upon them.

IOW, I was expressing ignorance on this point, and pointing
to where one might get the information. The LFS team isn't
in the business of supporting gcc, and I don't suppose it's
reasonable to ask them to know why the gcc support team decided
to package the required sources in the way they did.

Sorry for any confusion I caused.

Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the lfs-support mailing list