[Top] [All Lists]

Re: glibc-2.3.4 mips64 compilation failure

Subject: Re: glibc-2.3.4 mips64 compilation failure
From: Maxim Osipov <>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:30:35 +0400
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tc//QyzF5EgCmdS0798yp8Jbo8/IDArlgdvg0FvuH1yGZK7m09W/rQrtmq0Fju1UOBk8q/QkV1HdhQxnuiJoOyhT4k0N8HbDX4J/RocFVko7ndCj9dMT+Ya2HwnyAFqVFClcmv1eeqs8I4kArGKiYlXZtbOuF5TO0TXvHnGH6lU=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <>
Yes, thanks - I'm already using it, for glibc it did help with my
problem. Binutils 2.16 and gcc 3.4.3 seems to compile out of box (wo
any patches), but I didn't try produced code on a hardware yet.

Best regards,

On 5/31/05, Maxim Osipov <> wrote:
> > Do anyone have a clue what is happening? AFAIK, some people already
> > had success building glibc for mips64. Probably I miss something?
>   Please feel free to have a look at packages available at my site -- the
> setup may seem a little bit odd (n64 is used as the default format and
> actually the only one supported), but if you are after general setup,
> patches, etc. it is still relevant; just ignore the odd stuff.  Binary
> packages have been built with GCC 4.0.0, so probably the sources + patches
> are going to work with older tools as well.  You may consider using
> binutils 2.16, though (in general, not to solve your particular problem).
>    Maciej

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>