On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 07:28 -0500, Andrew Bradford wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Adrian Grigo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, after testing it again it seems I will have to eat my words. It > > appears that support for large files is the default setting in uclibc > > configuration for x86_64. > > > > I still need --disable-multilib to allow the final gcc stage to compile. > > > > If building GCC with --disable-multilib, would the -m32 or -m64 stored > in the ${BUILD} variable still be needed in order to build packages? > Or does GCC outputting 32 or 64 bit code not count as a library? > > Do you know what the other implications of --disable-multilib are on > x86? (I don't) > > Thanks, > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > Clfs-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
All of the gcc builds in embedded should have --disable-multilib if they do not already. If the target is i?86-*-*-* with or without --disable-multilib should produce a compiler for 32bit only. If the target is x86_64-*-*-* with --disable-multilib will produce a compiler for 64bit only. This is the desired behavior in the embedded builds. AFAIK GCC automatically will build a multilib compiler if the target triplet is for a 64bit architecture that has a 32bit subset. We really should have --disable-multilib everywhere in the embedded builds. Since there is no multilib, there should be no reason to have to specify -m32/-m64 via BUILD. The compiler should be built to produce the appropriate output rather then being told on the command line at every instance. Easily accomplished in non-multilib builds. -- Joe Ciccone _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
