https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #15 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> Installing your own glibc in a new location and trying to point GCC to it
> with -I /FaF/glibc/include is not "the default settings".
>
> As has been explained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Peter VARGA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
The glibc headers depend on the kernel UAPI headers, they need to be available
in the sysroot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #10 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> You need to recompile gcc telling it to use the new glibc.
>
> When GCC is built it creates fixed dependencies on the C library. You can't
> just point it to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You need to recompile gcc telling it to use the new glibc.
When GCC is built it creates fixed dependencies on the C library. You can't
just point it to a new libc and expect it to work. A new C library nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #7 from Peter VARGA ---
This is the original version:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #6 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> That's not how you use a different glibc. If you look at the include order
> printed by -v, it has to remain in that order (libstdc++ before glibc, in
> particular),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
That's not how you use a different glibc. If you look at the include order
printed by -v, it has to remain in that order (libstdc++ before glibc, in
particular), whereas you are adding your glibc in front. Best
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #4 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >-I /FaF/glibc/include
>
> Use -isystem instead or a true sysroot instead.
Can you post the full g++ command line options how you mean it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #3 from Peter VARGA ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >-I /FaF/glibc/include
>
> Use -isystem instead or a true sysroot instead.
Sorry, but this does not help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #2 from Peter VARGA ---
Sorry, but this does not help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84744
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>-I /FaF/glibc/include
Use -isystem instead or a true sysroot instead.
16 matches
Mail list logo