OSDev.org

MadZarx wrote:WOW. What the hell
So I have to buy a new PC for OS devel.

That's certainly one possibility.

However, you are not the first person to try to develop an OS on a computer that is not cutting edge. This is a good chance for you to think carefully before setting a long compile in motion so that you get it right first time (or perhaps second time). Or you could just be patient and wait for things to compile in their own good time. Early computer users had to wait overnight to get the simplest programs compiled; you can be sure that they were a lot less slapdash than most of us are today with the easy compile/test/debug/correct/compile... cycle that we can do in minutes.

If you lack patience I would say that does not bode well for your chances of writing a moderately complicated OS.

MadZarx wrote:WOW. What the hell
So I have to buy a new PC for OS devel. So I should rebuild GCC and it seems there is no solution for my problem.

If you had begun building GCC when you started this topic, you'd be done for now. The fact is that either 1) you failed to correctly copy your cross-compiler and reinstall it into the correct prefix, or 2) your new distribution has a slightly different ABI and there is nothing really you can do. The first situation is solved easily by copying your cross-gcc to the correct directory, unless the installation is corrupted because you messed up while making a copy.

In situation number two, the best solution is just to rebuild gcc.

MadZarx wrote: You all guys have something more than a supercomputer that you can build GCC in less than 5 minutes.
But mine is 8 years old with 1GiB RAM and 2.8GHz CPU. So I think if I build Linux, it would take a couple of weeks

Eh? My computer is from 2009, it's hardly a super computer. It's just a moderately good computer. Your 8 year old computer, however, is probably really slow by now - don't be surprised that things are slow on it. I recommend getting a new computer if you can afford one, otherwise, learn patience and rebuild your compiler.

Try search for liblto_plugin.so within your cross-compiler prefix. Be sure to restore the original prefix you made - gcc installations might not be relocatable.

MadZarx wrote:So I have to buy a new PC for OS devel. So I should rebuild GCC and it seems there is no solution for my problem.

Although I do my main compiling on a decent PC nowadays, I've compiled a Raspberry Pi cross compiler in Arch Linux on the RPi, which is hardly a supercomputer. When I discovered OSDev, I was using an old PIII running on 512MiB RAM.

It is certainly possible to do this on your PC - all you need for that is a little patience.

Cheers,
Adam

sortie wrote: If you had begun building GCC when you started this topic, you'd be done for now

Yeah your right. Now it's been solved now. I have rebuild it but I really don't know why this time it compiled very faster than last time. I could compile it in less than 15 minutes. I think it's because of my new distribution (xubuntu 13.04)

But in middle of compiling it was giving me some errors that it says there is no C++ compiler. I was confused why it gives me this error cuz GCC was installed. I issued g++ in terminal and I saw some parts of GCC isn't installed. After installing it, I could rebuild GCC.

Anyway. Would anyone tell me where the hell is that liblto_plugin.so library file? I wanna make a backup of it and other files that are installed inside my distro.

Hi,

Why backup? Surely you'd be better to let your package manger install the dependencies that are applicable to whatever version of the distro you next end up installing.

Cheers,
Adam

AJ wrote:Hi,

Why backup? Surely you'd be better to let your package manger install the dependencies that are applicable to whatever version of the distro you next end up installing.

Cheers,
Adam

I just want to have a backup of my cross compiler. I need it because when I changed my distro, I don't need to rebuild it again.
Just if it's possible tell me where does it copy the files and I will create a copy of them

Here's your chance for a little education. Teach yourself how to find a file on a UNIX system so that you don't have to ask others to do it for you.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/howto-find ... nder-unix/

iansjack wrote:Here's your chance for a little education. Teach yourself how to find a file on a UNIX system so that you don't have to ask others to do it for you.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/howto-find ... nder-unix/

Okay thank you. I'm new to *nix systems and I didn't know that

I have a feeling that liblto_plugin.so is part of the cross-compiler and not part of the system.

sortie wrote:I have a feeling that liblto_plugin.so is part of the cross-compiler and not part of the system.

Yes I searched for it and I found 6 liblto_plugin.so files. 3 of them are used by my system GCC and other 3 ones are used by cross compiler. They are in gcc/libexec/.../[gcc-version] and 2 of them are linked to liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0. There was liblto_plugin.so.0 and liblto_plugin.so.0.0.0 in my cross complier directory but no liblto_plugin.so. I didn't know why didn't it copied liblto_plugin.so from my last distro.

Sounds to me like you used a method that didn't properly handle symbolic links. Be sure to use .tar instead of .zip when backing up Unix data, as it is better able to represent Unix filesystem meta data.

sortie wrote:Sounds to me like you used a method that didn't properly handle symbolic links. Be sure to use .tar instead of .zip when backing up Unix data, as it is better able to represent Unix filesystem meta data.

So which compression method do you prefer that can keep links and permissions?

Note that compression has nothing to do with archiving. On Unix systems you use .tar which is basically a simple filesystem, and another program compresses the tarfile and you get something like .tar.gz (tar+gzip), .tar.bz2 (tar+bzip2), .tar.xz (tar+xz), and so on. I normally prefer .tar.xz because it gives very good compression, but it's really slow. For backups, I'd probably use the faster gzip. Note how the compression is completely unrelated to the tar filesystem.

So can tar archives keep the file permissions and links? If not which archive method can do it?

MadZarx wrote:So can tar archives keep the file permissions and links? If not which archive method can do it?

Yes on permissions. (Not sure about links)