Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
#1650 closed defect (fixed)
CFLAGS note for glibc
| Reported by: | Owned by: | Matthew Burgess | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | lowest | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
The CFLAGS note for glibc should be removed/reworded. See the above thread.
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
| Milestone: | → 6.1.1 |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → new |
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
| Status: | new → assigned |
|---|
comment:4 by , 19 years ago
IMO, the best thing would be to completely remove optimization related warnings from glibc, gcc and binutils. Instead in the Introduction section <http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/chapter06.html#ch-system-introduction> below the text for optimization, add a note stating that for the toolchain packages, using -march and -mtune options may cause problems.
Don't think it is imporatant for 6.1 series.
comment:5 by , 19 years ago
| Milestone: | 6.1.1 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → fixed |
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Thanks Tushar. Fixed in r7131 and removed the 6.1.1 target.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
There's also this text in chapter05/glibc.xml:
<para>It should be noted that compiling Glibc in any way other than the method suggested in this book puts the stability of the system at risk.</para>
IMO, that's implied for every package already - i.e. you can do so but at your own risk. Is it really required to remind people here? It just doesn't seem to fit/flow any more, with the warning just above it removed.
Reading the archives you linked to also suggests that binutils and gcc could have their similar CFLAGS related warnings removed, so I'll probably do that at the same time I tackle glibc.
Also nominating for 6.1.1 as fixing this just involves trivial textual edits that improve the accuracy of the book.