On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2015 14:34, Leno Hou wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 21 Sep 2015 13:15, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > > > On 9/21/15 10:02 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> > > > > On 09/21/2015 08:38 AM, Leno Hou wrote:
> > > > >> +          self.settings["CHOST"]="powerpc64le-linux-gnu"
> > > >
> > > > The CHOST is incorrect.  It should powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
> Leno,
> > > > can you please try to switch it to that and do another catalyst run.
> > > > You can begin with your current stage3 with the above CHOST and it
> > > > should work out correctly to the new CHOST name.  In another place
> you
> > > > said there is no compiler "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu" but that
> makes
> > > > no sense.  The tuple is parsed by gnuconfig script and it should work
> > > > like all other CHOST names we have in gentoo.
> > >
> > > powerpc64le-linux-gnu is a valid tuple (vendor can generally be
> omitted),
> > > but in Gentoo we do use "unknown" for our ppc ports.  so do as Anthony
> > > says ;).
> > > -mike
> > >
> >
> > When set CHOST="powerpc64le-linux-gnu", successfully compiled stage1.
> > But CHOST="powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu", something happens as following.
> > https://bpaste.net/show/189b2b12d8e2
> >
> > So I think CHOST="powerpc64le-linux-gnu" would be better.
>
> i think you're misreading things.  we didn't say
> "powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu",
> we said "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu".
> -mike
>

I've tested CHOST="powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu" and proved you're right.
The results is that got compiler called "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu-*"
in stage 1.
So could you help me to commit PATCH v2 ?  thanks.
-Leno Hou