Consider using --disable-shared for gcc pass 1

[Jeremy Huntwork]

Some discussion already at #2053

[Jeremy Huntwork]

Relevant threads:

​http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2007-August/001068.html ​http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-January/055262.html ​http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2005-June/000556.html

[Jeremy Huntwork]

Anyone mind if I drop this into trunk and close out this ticket?

[Julio Meca Hansen]

Has this change already landed or does it need some review prior to closing the ticket? If needed I could perform a new system build and serve as a tester, so we can start closing some tickets and advancing into other ones.

Julio

[Jeremy Huntwork]

It hasn't landed in trunk, mostly because no one else has commented on whether or not they agree. It has been in the jh branch for several months (and working wonderfully) and, before that, in DIY Linux for much longer. In the end, it's not the sort of thing that really brings radical changes to our methodology, it just tweaks the level of robustness. Given that no one has objected, I'll probably drop this in whenever I do more updates.

[tushar@…]

Instead of creating the libgcc_eh.a -> libgcc.a symlink, another option could be to use the following for glibc (CLFS uses a patch to do this):

sed -i "s@\-lgcc_eh@@g" Makeconfig

[randy@…]

I'm bumping the priority of this up because if it is going into the book for the next release it needs to be done as soon as possible so that it can be tested (I realize much testing has probably been done over at DIY already).

I don't know how much it being in the JH branch does as anybody building that branch is probably using 64bit machines and there could be some subtle differences (though I doubt it).

I did not use it in my newest build, so I cannot comment. But if it's going in, I'd much rather it be sooner than later.

[DJ Lucas]

Will also drop in this one, though it's been tested pretty thoroughly already. Report tomorrow.

[DJ Lucas]

Fixed in r8647.