[Gllug] Debugging kernel loading initrd

[John Edwards]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:42:21AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2008, John Edwards said:
>> Thanks again for sharing your deep knowledge of glibc.
> 
> Ha! Ha! Hardly. I know enough to build and test it, know when test
> failures are likely to be significant, fix simple bugs and not get
> burned. Complex stuff is still beyond me.

You've built up a good amount of experience then.


>> That all makes sense to me, except that the glibc 2.7 INSTALL
>> appears to say the opposite (use --host and not --build):
> 
> That's somewhat out of date. If you set one, it'll set the other for
> you.
> 
>>      If you only specify `--host', `configure' will prepare for a
>>      native compile but use what you specify instead of guessing what
>>      your system is. This is most useful to change the CPU submodel.
>>      For example, if `configure' guesses your machine as
>>      `i586-pc-linux-gnu' but you want to compile a library for 386es,
>>      give `--host=i386-pc-linux-gnu' or just `--host=i386-linux' and add
>>      the appropriate compiler flags (`-mcpu=i386' will do the trick) to
>>      CFLAGS.
>>
>>      If you specify just `--build', `configure' will get confused.
> 
> In that case I'm using a confused glibc on every system I use :)
> 
> You actually get a warning from configure if you use --host without
> --build. It's probably safest to use both unless you're cross-compiling.

>> So to clarify I'm building glibc using Linux From Scratch on an i686
>> machine but want to use it on CPUs from i486 upwards. So should I be
>> setting both build and host to "i486-pc-linux-gnu"?
> 
> Yep.

Thanks for the clarification, which also match the couple of quick
glibc configure tests I did. Setting both is what we were planing to
do.


>> ps. The CFLAGS were done by someone else and I've not touched them.
> 
> glibc makes massive changes to them anyway, filtering out dangerous
> options and adding heaps of others.
> 
> (btw, if you're not using --enable-omitfp, you almost certainly want
> to. It's tested much more than alternatives, despite the horrible
> warnings wrapped around it for no obvious reason. I've not known it
> cause a problem since the days of GCC 2.7.x.)

I'll have to read the docs on that.

<snip> 

Thanks very much.


-- 
#---------------------------------------------------------#
|    John Edwards   Email: john at cornerstonelinux.co.uk    |
#---------------------------------------------------------#
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20080501/73e22a63/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug