Re: glibc-2.2.5-allow-gcc-4.0-mipsel.patch

[Daniel Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Piete Sartain wrote:
> > Most of my patches have short notes at the top explaining why they're 
> > needed.
> > Can you add the error message 
> > glibc-2.2.5-remove-extra-syscalls-mipsel.patch
> > is meant to fix, and/or include a link to the message you took it from
> > (looks like it might be
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/1998-q4/msg00065.html
> > which is about three messages along in the thread you pointed to)?
>
>
> Done and done!  I hope it's ok.  The patch itself failed to have any 
> effect on the compilation process (and the resultant failure), as far as 
> I can tell.

Hang on - then why are we applying it?   No need to apply a patch
if it doesn't do anything for us :-)

> I have suspicions that glibc-2.2.5 is too old to work with the 2.6 
> headers, but I have no justification for that other than a childish 
> "'cause it kinda might be kinda thing".
>
> I shall try building with older headers (possibly using the sanitized 
> versions) and see if it makes a difference.  I can do trial and error, 
> but otherwise I'm out of my depth!

The sanitized headers are a very good thing in general,
who knows if they'll help here.
- Dan

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