If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Free COMPILERS and CROSS-COMPILERS for Linux and Windows.
Did you ever consider writing a script which does all of the steps you so neatly outlined in your previous posts? Preferably with configurable CHOST and CTARGET tuples and maybe let it apply custom patches from a separate directory (e.g. for fixes straight from binutils/gcc bugtrackers).
I had a look at the script and it would be easy to add CHOST and CTARGET info. There is really no need for the patches unless the (supposedly stable) code does not compile.
I am having problem making cross compiler for Linux step (2) when using c++ with c .
make returns error
configure: error: Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
[configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1
The configure script works by compiling little test programs and running them.
If a compile fails, it throws a totally cryptic message at you, which is usually no help at all (the help messages are designed to be as unhelpful as possible).
Unfortunately there are hundreds of ways the error message "Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES" can occur.
All this error message is saying, is that the linking of the test program failed. It makes no attempt to tell you why it failed.
The error messages in GCC are often so useless you have to find the error by other means. Looking in the file config.log often helps.
On occasions I have seen this error message and found the real error back some 4 or 5 screen-fulls of messages.
I have seen the message "Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES" when header files can not be found, when test -x fails, when the test builds a Windows executable and tries to run it on Linux,.... like I said, there are a thousand possible reasons,...
Hunt around and see if you can locate the real error. Then I might be able to help.
I have not looked at gcc-4.2.4.
You might want to try gcc-4.2.3 which is known to work.
You may wonder why the GCC people have left it this way for so many years,... but that would involve you understanding the conspiracies that run the planet.