Re: [More help ...]

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Kumar Ramanathan writes:
 > OK , 
 > Here is my setup :
 > 
 > binutils 2.9.5.14.
 > gcc 2.95 (also egcs 1.1.2)
 > linux kernel 2.2.14 
 > glibc 2.1.1
 > 
 > First , my binutils built fine.(touch wood).
 > Then the gcc 2.95 went thru' good.(  " )
 >  I did a make config on the kernel source and created the headers.
 > (The intel site says that a way to verify header creation is to check fro
 > include/linux/version.h , which exists. Is this check enough ??)
 > Also , I have symbolic links to include/asm and include/linux inside my
 > prefix/include.
 > 
 > When I tried to build glibc last week with gcc 2.95 , the configure script
 > plonked saying that the version of gcc was old / bad.
 > 
 > So I decided to go to egcs1.1.2, thinking it was new. From your mail , I
 > gather egcs1.1.2 is older than gcc 2.95. Makes sense, since the gcc 2.95
 > contains more added support for processors.
 > 
 > Why would the glibc freak over the gcc version then ?? 

Dunno.  I haven't built glibc that often.
I'm guessing there's an appropriate list to send glibc questions to,
if no one else on this list has an answer.

From the crossgcc FAQ, you might try bug-glibc@gnu.org.

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com