From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MxMqR-0001ho-Hx for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:55 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MxMqP-0001er-4K for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MxMqK-0001We-4G for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51651 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MxMqJ-0001WI-Vp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:48 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:20786) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MxMqJ-0000AI-Ko for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay1.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.111]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2009 11:29:46 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay1.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE4DA34C69; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20091012.032838.82254107.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20091012.031430.106385568.davem@davemloft.net> <4AD3043C.10204@gmail.com> <20091012.032838.82254107.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:29:44 -0400 Message-Id: <1255361384.27987.8.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: phcoder@gmail.com, bean123ch@gmail.com, grub-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: powerpc/sparc problems X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:29:53 -0000 On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 03:28 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > Do you think we should just revert it? > > Probably. The purpose of the patch was to remove the requirement that the target libc development package is present. That's a common situation for x86_64 systems that may have a 32-bit capable compiler, and maybe the 32-bit libc installed as a dependency of a 32-bit package (e.g. wine), but no the files necessary to link against the 32-bit libc. I don't know why the checks need to be reinstated, but if it's really needed to be done, we could use the trick described in the gcc manual: `-print-libgcc-file-name' Same as `-print-file-name=libgcc.a'. This is useful when you use `-nostdlib' or `-nodefaultlibs' but you do want to link with `libgcc.a'. You can do gcc -nostdlib FILES... `gcc -print-libgcc-file-name` This way, it should be possible to check if the functions are in libgcc without requiring libc. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin