i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1 vs. i586-pc-linux-gnu

i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1 vs. i586-pc-linux-gnu

Post by Ross Vandegrif » Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:00:00



        I am currently working on building up a glibc-2.1 based distribution.  To
date I have never built a distribution across libc versions - they have all
been libc5 based.  Now, I have the problem of conflicting libraries.
        I figured the easiest way to keep the different library versions seperate
was to build a cross-compiling environment for GNU Libc 2.1 based Linux.
So, I went about building a cross-development environment - I compiled
binutils-2.9.1.0.21, egcs-1.1.2, and glibc-2.1 exactly as if I was building
an environment to host Hurd (my last venture; it failed, btw).  Binutils
and egcs were configured with --build/--host=i586-pc-linux-gnulibc and
--target=i586-pc-linux-gnu.  Glibc 2.1 was compiled with
--build-i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1 and --host/--target=i586-pc-linux-gnu.
These builds went well, and I came out of the other side with what seemed
like a perfect cross-development environment.
        So I picked out a little package to test this out.  I built make-3.77,
once with a * configure line, and once with i586-pc-linux-gnu as the
host.  This worked great.  The first configure got me a make linked to
libc.so.5 and ld-linux.so.1, while the second one scored me a make linked
to libc.so.6 and ld-linux.so.2.  For the next test I grabbed the bash
source.  Every combination of configure commands and setting CC would
produce a binary linked to libc.so.5/ld-linux.so.1.  The big problem here,
was every time my system was identified as i586-pc-linux-gnu!  Are these
two target names too similar for configure to differentiate?  Why did this
setup work really well during the build of my environment and why did it
not work after it was done?  Is this intended autoconf behavior?

Ross
--
WARNING: Windows is unable to provide a .sig, rebooting...

 
 
 

i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1 vs. i586-pc-linux-gnu

Post by will » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00


:       I am currently working on building up a glibc-2.1 based distribution.  To
: date I have never built a distribution across libc versions - they have all
: been libc5 based.  Now, I have the problem of conflicting libraries.

<snip>*details

I had a similar problem - how to get a libc6 compile environment going
while still* onto the old libc5 one: I found a most useful guide:

http://www.veryComputer.com/~frodol/glibc

this is so bullet- and idiot-proof I even managed to throw Fortran
support into the works while I was doing it, with virtually no previous
knowldege of building a compiler at all.

: Ross
: --
: WARNING: Windows is unable to provide a .sig, rebooting...

 
 
 

1. Configuring Linux tools: i586-pc-linux-gnu or i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1 ?????

Hello all,
This problem is causing me many sleepless nights (well, metaphorically
speaking anyway). As I understand it, I should try and configure all of
my Linux tools for the same target so that they all look for each other
in the same directories etc. However, they don't always agree on what my
system IS - e.g. binutils claims that I have a i586-unknown-linux-gnu,
whereas gcc and libg++ default to i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1. And yes, I do
have glibc-2.0.5 installed in /usr/local but I am uncomfortable about it
being there because it stops me from compiling the kernel and anything
which includes the linux/*.h headers.(I understand that this is normal?)

I have currently forced the target to be i586-pc-linux-gnu where
possible, since if I want to actually compile anything I have to move
all of the glibc1 headers to where the compiler can't find them anyway.
The final binary seems to link against libc.5.so, so this seems OK. The
gcc-2.8.0 compiler works.

libg++-2.8.0 does NOT work. According to the READMEs, libg++ must be
compiled for the same target as gcc-2.8.0 or gcc will not see it. This
implies the i586-pc-linux-gnu target. Unfortunately the compiler bombs
out when building libg++ for this target and the egcs (which shares much
source code with gcc-2.8.0) FAQ says "use the default target instead" -
i.e. gnulibc1. Building for gnulibc1 does work, although it doesn't do
me any good because the compiler is ...-linux-gnu.

There HAS to be a way to sort this mess out. Do I have to totally
eradicate glibc from my system so that gcc and libg++ can correctly
identify it as -linux-gnu? If so, how can I install glibc? And if I do
install glibc then how can I compile a new kernel? Or maybe there's a
problem with my setup? Since I neither want nor need several compilers,
I told gcc to install to --prefix=/usr, and up til now it worked just
fine...

Any insights would be appreciated,
Cheers,
Chris.

2. coredump analysis

3. g++ and -frepo problems on Intel Linux (i586-pc-linux-gnu)

4. MS must turn over Win95 source code to Caldera!

5. Linux Kernel i386 vs i586 vs i686

6. dosemu and opendos

7. P5 vs 686 why i586 vs i486

8. Running Linux from a Sun IPX

9. i586 kernel vs i686 kernel

10. i385 vs i586 binary RPMs

11. Linux experts: I need your help in doing Telnet from weindows PC to linux PC

12. i386 vs i586 kernels (RedHat 6.0)