Re: default-1.0-gcc3 success

Hi Lars and others,

Thanks a lot for your help, the glibc problem is solved now! :) The problem was 
that I had emerged GCC 3.1 before I started bootstrapping the system, that's 
why glibc won't compile. Now I've removed the whole Gentoo partition and 
started over installing. I've linked /etc/make.profile to 
/usr/portage/profiles/default-1.0-gcc3 and edited the packages file so that 
binutils 2.12 is choosen instead of 2.11. The bootstrap process is now ready 
and I have edited the compile flags in /etc/make.conf to match my CPU. I'll try 
to emerge the system now :)

Thanks again for your help,

Niek.

On Wed, 29 May 2002 18:17:06 +1200
Lars Pechan <lars.pechan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sorry for not getting back on this yesterday.
> 
> As you may have seen wading through the archives I've been through the same 
> problems as you but it only happened when I tried to bootstrap using gcc-3.1. 
> I used two different methods to build the gcc to bootstrap with: either 
> bootstrapping twice or emerging gcc-3.1 as the very first thing after having 
> installed the tarball iff the Gentoo CD.
> 
> In both cases I got to the same stage as you, i.e. glibc would not build due 
> to the error you've seen.
> 
> Spider then reported he'd successfully boostrapped straight from the tarball 
> and I and I believe others have done that as well without any problems at all 
> (at that stage anyway). Doing it this way means glibc doesn't get built with 
> various optimizations but it's probably not a very good idea to do so anyway.
> 
> I've built xfree86-4.2.0r9 since without any problems. Maybe different use 
> flags is causing this to fail for some and succeed for others?
> 
> My use flags are:
> 
> USE="alsa directfb dvd 3dnow lm_sensors -gnome spell imap xml doc"
> 
> I'm having problems with the nvidia driver but s/w open-gl seems ok. I 
> haven't 
> researched this fully but I believe the nvidia issue may well be due to the 
> difference in abi between gcc-3.1 compiled system libraries and nvidia's 
> binaries (that have been compiled with something else - 2.95 most likely). 
> I'm hoping I'm wrong though cause otherwise we have to wait for nvidia to 
> release gcc3 compiled drivers. Anyone having had more luck?
> 
> kdebase and kdelibs have built fine but I had to do something very ugly to 
> get 
> fam-oss to compile (I'm in contact with the maintainer about this one). 
> Anyone else having had any problems with this? I can't get as far as kdevelop 
> since lynx won't compile but I have a theory that's because of the 
> ncurses-issues. 
> 
> What else... ah, just tried emerge kde which tries to compile xanim (probably 
> due to my use-flags, I think) which fails miserably. Might look into it later 
> if I get a chance.
> 
> Would be good if other early adopters could post their experiences too.
> 
> Finally, I changed my compiler flags to 
> 
> C[XX]FLAGS=-march=athlon-xp -O3 -mmmx -m3dnow -pipe
> 
> immediately after the bootstrap was done so the emerge system was done with 
> them rather than the std -march=i686 -O3 -pipe.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> /Lasse
> 
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:43, Webmaster Refstart.NL wrote:
> > This is very cool, are you using binutils 2.12 (combreloc tweak) or the
> > default 2.11? I'm trying to bootstrap my system with GCC 3.1 and binutils
> > 2.12, but I get this error while compiling glibc:
> >
> > gawk: scripts/versions.awk:68: (FILENAME=- FNR=3) fatal: printf to "sort -n
> > > /v ar/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r2/work/glibc-2.2.5/buildhere/Versions.tmp"
> > failed (B roken pipe)
> > sed: couldn't write 69 items to {standard output}: Broken pipe
> > stdout: Broken pipe
> > make[1]: ***
> > [/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r2/work/glibc-2.2.5/buildhere/sysd-ve rsions]
> > Error 2
> > make[1]: Leaving directory
> > '/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r2/work/glibc-2.2.5' make: *** [all] Error 2
> >
> > !!! ERROR: The ebuild did not complete succesfully.
> > !!! Function src_compile, Line 14, Exitcode 2
> > !!! (no error message)
> >
> > !!! emerge aborting on  /usr/portage/sys-libs/glibc/glibc-2.2.5-r2.ebuild .
> >
> > How can I solve this? Should I bootstrap my system with GCC 2.95 and then
> > install GCC 3.1?
> >
> > Bye, Niek.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:24:18 +0000
> >
> > Jack Morgan <yojack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I did a fresh install after borking an upgrade atempt. I was able to
> > > get gcc3.1 to bootstrap. I installed from cdrom, BTW. Here is a short
> > > summary:
> > >
> > > 1) Bootstrap phase
> > > Perl wouldn't compile. I had to unmask it, eg comment it out, in
> > > package.mask. Then it compiled. Version perl5.6.1-r4, I think.
> > > My USE variables were set to the default or USE="" and my compiler
> > > was set to -march=i686 -O6
> > >
> > > 2) Emerge system
> > > Everything compiled fine here. Once the system was installed, I added
> > > many USE variables and changed my compiler to -march=athlon -O6. All
> > > packages installed after this worked fine using athlon optimization.
> > > At this point, I wanted to do, emrege -e world but was afraid ;-)
> > >
> > > 3) Xfree-4.2.0-r9
> > > Wouldn't compile. I unmasked this in package.mask and I'm currently
> > > compiling xfree-4.2.0-r11. I'll let you know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thanks to all devlopers working on getting gcc-3.1 working.
> > >
> > > --
> > > jack_morgan
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > > gentoo-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev