[uClibc]Anyone found the cause...

Thomas Cameron tom at ceisystems.com
Thu Jan 9 15:34:39 UTC 2003


Erik,
	I did a diff against two buildroot directories.  One had compiled without 
error, the other failed in the usual place.  I was reading the diff file, and 
I again saw the following:

configure:2212: 
/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/gcc-final/gcc/xgcc 
-B/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/gcc-final/gcc/ 
-B/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/staging_dir/i386-linux/bin/ 
-B/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/staging_dir/i386-linux/lib/ 
-isystem 
/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/staging_dir/i386-linux/include 
-o conftest -g -Os   conftest.c  1>&5
+/opt/development/sources/tmp/buildroot/build/staging_dir/i386-linux/bin/ld: 
cannot open crt1.o: No such file or directory

	I am wondering where exactly it is looking for crt1.o, and why it is not 
finding it.  As far as I can tell, I set all the options back to their 
defaults, except for kernel, and busybox options.

	Again, my system has a crt1.o I found in /usr/lib, but I don't think it came 
from the previous install of buildroot.  Is this also true for you?  Where is 
crt1.0 suposed to be built and found with regard to buildroot?  Any further 
help is greatly appreciated!

Sincerely,
Thomas Cameron


On Wednesday 08 January 2003 09:19 pm, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> 	Okay, the build is getting better, I swear.  And I think I'm closer that
> before to figuring out what is happening.  It seems that when I do not have
> WCHAR support enabled and/or LFS enabled, things go haywire.  I'm not
> really sure why, or why changing things back before didn't fix it, but hey.
> Anyway, I am going to continue building this thing with different options
> until I break it again.  I am going to leave LFS and WCHAR enabled though.
> One other note.  Can we add a test the the uClibc make that checks if we
> have enabled LFS support, and override the .config options?  It's a pain to
> change things in both places (read: I hate compiling just to find out I
> forgot the make file).  ;-)
>
> Joseph,
> 	I appreciate the heads-up. I was thinking the same thing, until I realised
> that the system _does_ compile with the default options as found in CVS.
> Once I saw that, I pretty much ruled out a flaky `make` implementation.
> Although, I do know that it is not a total impossibility.
>
> Thanks again for the help,
> Thomas Cameron
> CEI Systems, Inc.
>
> On Wednesday 08 January 2003 04:37 pm, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:28:22PM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > > Erik,
> > > 	The build was looking VERY promising, intil I got a message about not
> > > being able to find a ".gcc_build_hacks" file in `build/gcc-target`. 
> > > This is an obvious error, as ther is no directory by that name.
> >
> > Already fixed.  'cvs up'
> >
> >  -Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://uclibc.org/mailman/listinfo/uclibc




More information about the uClibc mailing list