On 30/10/11 22:45, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>
> Am 30.10.2011 um 22:02 schrieb Martin Costabel:
>
>>> How often do I need to state that I was using *some* modern compiler
>>> to build a (MacPorts affiliated, because its the only provider of Open
>>> Source 64-bit binaries) 64-bit version of GNU Emacs on purpose? And just
>>
>> Are they distributing binaries now? I didn't know.
>
> I used the term "providing" which is not the same as distributing.

You even said "the only provider", so it must be something that Fink 
doesn't do.

>> BTW, from your error messages it seems that it is not the *compiler* that 
>> doesn't like 64bit, but the linker. The compiler produced all those 
>> dispnew.o etc object files that are indeed 64bit, but it tries to link a 
>> 32bit binary.
>>
>> Did you try to tell the *linker* to produce a 64bit binary, too? It probably 
>> won't work if you need libgcc.a, because that one is 32bit, but it seems to 
>> me you haven't even tried.
>
> Since GCC 4.6 has no Apple extensions and it is used as the linker as well 
> there is only -m64, maybe I can also use the -march= and -mtune= switches. 
> And finally I could also try GCC 4.2 as linker!

But on your linker line, there was no -m64 or any other invitation to 
build a 64bit binary.

-- 
Martin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook 
in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps 
for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple 
it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.macosx.fink.user
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users

Reply via email to