--- Comment #13 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-23 19:36 ---
As testing with a newer binutils apparently isn't forthcoming, closing as
invalid.
As an aside, while AFAIK this is not documented, my intuition is that
libgfortran requires a somewhat up to date libc, so maybe glibc 2.
--- Comment #12 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 22:20
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> binutils-2.9.5.0.22-6
Too old. And, with the configure line you indicated (i.e. not specifying a
special assembler and linker), it is going to be used. So, you need to use more
recent
--- Comment #11 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 21:49 ---
rpm -q binutils
binutils-2.9.5.0.22-6
BUT ... the configure output seems to indicate that the build as and ld used
here are NOT the system's (unless something devious that I am missing is going
on) ... AND the bug r
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 09:26
---
Can you tell us what you binutils version is (the version of ld and as)?
According to http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#ix86-x-linux, "As of GCC
3.3, binutils 2.13.1 or later is required for this platform.
--- Comment #9 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-05 08:19 ---
Relevant info for libgfortran build prior to blizzard of duplicate symbol
warnings. This was from a pristine build:
../gcc/configure MAKE=gmake --enable-languages=fortran LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib
...
Checking multi
--- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-01 10:43
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> .libs/in_unpack_generic.o: In function `putc_unlocked':
> .libs/in_unpack_generic.o(.text+0x2220): multiple definition of
> `putc_unlocked'
> .libs/backtrace.o(.text+0x27c0): first defi
--- Comment #7 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-01 08:24 ---
Can't verify that the patch provided works. After three attempts at a build
(one just by patching libgfortran.h followed by a "make", one by "make
clean-target-libgfortran" followed by "make" and one built from scrat
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-22 13:55
---
If you confirm that the patch in comment #1 fixes it for you, I'll commit it.
(glibc-2.1.3 and egcs-2.91.66? impressive)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35471
--- Comment #5 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-22 10:37 ---
glibc version used in build:
#rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.1.3-15
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35471
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 21:52 ---
What glibc version are you using?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35471
--- Comment #3 from george at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 21:49 ---
Here is the relevant info for the build system:
#gcc -v -o /tmp/test /tmp/test.c
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-11 12:02 ---
What glibc or newlib version are you using to compile GCC with?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
