[ale] 2.4 and glibc 2.1.92

[Joseph A. Knapka]

Since the kernel doesn't use glibc, I don't think the version
of glibc you are using could prevent the kernel from booting.
It might, however, prevent some executables needed at boot
time from running (init, getty, etc). How far does the boot
process get?

It is, as Fulton says, much more likely that you are using a
broken compiler, wrong versions of binutils, or something
like that.

(Hmm. Wonder what happens if you build glibc using gcc2.96.
Bad things, I bet.)

-- Joe

Fulton Green wrote:
> 
> Qs for you:
> - Using kgcc or the "infamous" gcc 2.96?
> - Have you checked for an upgrade package for glibc 2.2?
> - Are you optimising for i686 (Pent. II et.al.)?
> 
> I've had success in the past building w/gcc and whatever glibc was available
> (currently using 2.2, which I may have scarfed from Raw Hide). But I'm also
> compiling w/i586 optimisations (being that I'm stuck w/a measly Pentium MMX),
> and I have heard a few things out there that would seem to suggest a problem
> with the i686-optimised kernel (even though that's just a hunch I have
> right now).
> 
> And by the way, you should be getting a whole ton of warnings if you compile
> w/gcc. Well, if it were a perfect world (and a near-perfect gcc 3.0), you
> wouldn't be getting *any* warnings, but I digress ... :)
> 
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:48:45AM -0500, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
> > Has anyone successfully built *and run* the 2.4 kernel after compiling
> > with 2.1.92 glibc on Red Hat 7?
> > I don't get any errors on the compile, make or install but it won't
> > boot.
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.

-- Joe Knapka
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.