__libc_stack_end not defined???

7.e.Q · 07-08-2004, 03:27 AM

Hey again...

used gcc seems to be the correct one. Now this in LFS 5.1.1, step "binutils pass 2" after make:

Code:

/mnt/newILX/tools/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.3/../../../../i386-pc-linux-gnu/bin/as: relocation error: /toolchain/lib/libc.so.6: symbol __libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference
make[3]: *** [ldgram.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/build-lfs-5.1.1/binutils-build/ld'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/build-lfs-5.1.1/binutils-build/ld'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/build-lfs-5.1.1/binutils-build/ld'
make: *** [all-ld] Error 2

edit: ah here is the used ld-linux.so.2:

Code:

lfs:/mnt/build-lfs-5.1.1/binutils-build$ readelf /toolchain/bin/gcc -l |grep ld
      [Requesting program interpreter: /toolchain/lib/ld-linux.so.2]

Anyone got same problem? Workaround? What went wrong? Did everything as I was told by LFS 5.1.1 Book and the cross-compile texts to build LFS on a P3 650MHz for a i386-pc-linux-gnu architecture...

everything worked fine till here...

Help please! It's very important!

Thanx!

7.e.Q · 07-09-2004, 12:15 AM

Hey folks,

this is very important to me... I can't continue my work and I can't find any information neither at google nor anywhere else...

I followed every step from LFS 5.1.1 Book. The only thing I did not the way the book told me was cross-compiling for i386. For this problem I used THIS DOCUMENTATION.

If somebody is out there who has got a little time... can you try this out and tell me if you run into the same problems?!

Or perhaps there is somebody who had the same problems and solved 'em... so please tell me how I get rid of this error!

I urgently need this problem to be solved!

Andrew Benton · 07-09-2004, 12:06 PM

"Did everything as I was told by LFS 5.1.1 Book"? So why does it say "/toolchain/bin/gcc" and "/toolchain/lib/ld-linux.so.2"? The book says

mkdir $LFS/tools

Follow the book.

7.e.Q · 07-12-2004, 03:42 AM

Oh well, you were right... problem was the specs patch for gcc pass 2. Self made problem.

I couldn't follow the book in this 'cos /tools already existed due to an older and kind of missconfigured installation of LFS which one I wanted to rebuild correctly this time.

Yeah just a self made problem... and a solved one. I think there should be more information regarding the importance of the directory name "tools". So if somebody changes this before or while installing lfs, he or she should really know what he has to modify to get the installation to work with the new directory name.

Andrew Benton · 07-12-2004, 06:24 AM

Wise words. Thanks for posting back.
My first two attempts at LFS failed because I didn't follow the book. I thought I was smart. Thought I knew better. On my third attempt I swallowed my pride and followed the book to the letter and the build went all the way through to a Gnome 2.2 desktop. Then I tried to install Gnome-2.4 over that and it all went horribly wrong (doh!).
Good luck with your next build.

7.e.Q · 07-19-2004, 02:21 AM

Thanx for the good wishes but I think, next time I will build a gentoo. LFS seems fine as long as you don't touch it too much. I thought only Windows behaves this way...

320mb · 07-20-2004, 09:14 AM

LOL, WHY Gentoo??
I've built 4 LFS systems using Slackware............but I also
followed the Book....to the letter.........taking shortcuts is NOT
the way to build an LFS system...........

7.e.Q · 02-09-2006, 12:28 AM

Oh, hey... A very old thread forgotten in the darkest corners of my dark brain.

Well, just to inform you: as time goes by I successfully created a highly customized LFS for our "embedded" hardware. And it works fine! It was a lot of fun creating it on a Dual Intel XEON 2.66GHz.

Gentoo would have been an alternative because it has its own integrated package management which I think is great. I miss something like that in the LFS I built. I integrated RPM now, but as you can imagine it doesn't work as it should because of the missing dependecies... Well, that isn't a big problem because the only thing we need RPM for is a scheduled update of a proprietary software, called ISTSBIOS. And for that all dependencies in the LFS are always matched because it has been developed inside this LFS.

Well... just for your information.

And @320mb: I just saw that you are from Pikes Peak (btw: I'm from Hamburg, Germany). For this reason I must tell you I'm a big fan of Audi Quattro and the legendary Rallye season of 1987 in Pikes Peak which was won by Walter Roehrl, you know?! I think, you are to be envied for living there.