http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #6 from Booty Bootstrapper 2013-04-01
17:43:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Is there any way to prevent this dance? I do not care about bootstrapping at
> this point, I just need a working compiler for the new glibc.
H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #5 from Booty Bootstrapper 2013-04-01
17:24:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I am not cross compiling. The machine of the host is exactly the one of the
> > target. Host and target use diffe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-01
17:13:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am not cross compiling. The machine of the host is exactly the one of the
> target. Host and target use different versions of glibc, though.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #3 from Booty Bootstrapper 2013-04-01
17:08:44 UTC ---
I am not cross compiling. The machine of the host is exactly the one of the
target. Host and target use different versions of glibc, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #2 from Booty Bootstrapper 2013-04-01
17:06:57 UTC ---
How does this solve the problem? What is wrong with linking to the libs in
/tmp/sysrootd - after all, the headers in /tmp/sysrootd are used already.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56802
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-01
17:01:15 UTC ---
I think the trick is to compile a cross compiler and then another cross
compiler where the host==target!=build.
