View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
webhawg Apprentice
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 Posts: 293
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:10 am Post subject: bootstrap.sh error |
|
|
I'm trying to install Gentoo on an old pc, but during the bootstrap.sh an error occurred. Could someone give me some suggestions on how to fix this?
Code: |
make[2]: *** [/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r7/work/glibc-2.2.5/buildhere/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.stmp] Illegal instruction
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[2]: Leaving directory 'var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r7/work/glibc-2.2.5/sunrpc'
make[1]: *** [sunrpc/others] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.2.5-r7/work/glibc-2.2.5'
make: *** [all] Error 2
!!! ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.2.5-r7 failed.
!!! Failed src_compile, Line 83, Exitcode 2
!!! (no error message)
cdimage portage #
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
rac Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 6553 Location: Japanifornia
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
What are your CFLAGS and what is the target CPU model? _________________ For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
Back to top |
|
|
webhawg Apprentice
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 Posts: 293
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
What are your CFLAGS and what is the target CPU model?
|
CFLAGS="-march=pentium -03 -pipe"
My pc is an Intel 133Mhz with 64MB of RAM. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rac Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 6553 Location: Japanifornia
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the exact filename of the stage tarball you used to start your Gentoo install? _________________ For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
Back to top |
|
|
webhawg Apprentice
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 Posts: 293
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
stage1-x86-1.4_rc1-20020908-1208.tar.bz2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dcj n00b
Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
webhawg wrote: |
CFLAGS="-march=pentium -03 -pipe" |
I'm having precisely the same problem with
CFLAGS="-march=k6 -03 -pipe"
I'm using the same stage1 tarball as the other user. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dcj n00b
Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 9
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
webhawg Apprentice
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 Posts: 293
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So does that mean that I should be using...
CHOST="i586-pc-linux-gnu"
instead of....
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dcj n00b
Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
webhawg wrote: | So does that mean that I should be using...
CHOST="i586-pc-linux-gnu"
instead of....
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" |
Yes, if you're using a Pentium (not Pentium Pro/II/III/IV). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
webhawg Apprentice
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 Posts: 293
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok...thanks for the help. I'll try it out. So are my CFLAGS correct? My processor is just an Intel 133Mhz. So I figured the 'pentium' was the closest one to that.
CFLAGS="-march=pentium -03 -pipe" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dcj n00b
Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
webhawg wrote: | So are my CFLAGS correct? My processor is just an Intel 133Mhz. So I figured the 'pentium' was the closest one to that.
CFLAGS="-march=pentium -03 -pipe" |
I don't speak from any position of authority, but that looks right to me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
int1 Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 8:06 pm Post subject: mmx |
|
|
BTW, you might be able to do -march=pentium-mmx, so you programs could use the mmx instruction set.
int1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zhenlin Veteran
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 Posts: 1361
|
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doubt it, Pentium 133 predate the MMX instructions... I have a Pentium 150! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
int1 Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zhenlin wrote: | Doubt it, Pentium 133 predate the MMX instructions... I have a Pentium 150! |
Good point! Of course, there are those evil "Overdrive" processors, but I believe 166 was the lowest they ran. Thanks for the reminder!
int1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|