On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:52:58 -0500
Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, OK.
So we're talking about a 64-bit `gcc` binary (sparc64 bootstrapped
this, yes?) while I'm running a 32-bit `gcc` that can produce
32/64-bit code. Since these binaries are fundamentally different,
I can't say that I track failing packages (how does one do this?) but
stupid question -- are the versions of gcc on your machine and sompek(2)
identical? What about kernel version (it probably doesn't matter, but you
never know on some of these RISC ports). Also, I'll try to reproduce it
locally
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:41:35 -0500
Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say that I track failing packages (how does one do this?) but
stupid question -- are the versions of gcc on your machine and
sompek(2) identical? What about kernel version (it probably doesn't
matter,
So this is the sparc64 version of debian, not sparc?
The reason I ask is because (IIRC) the default mode in sparc is to output
32-bit SPARC code but utilizing the SPARCv9 instructions (i.e. not able to
be run on pre-UltraSPARC machines) -- this was done because the sparc32,
i.e. pre-UltraSPARC
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:40:47 -0500
Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote:
So this is the sparc64 version of debian, not sparc?
The reason I ask is because (IIRC) the default mode in sparc is to
output 32-bit SPARC code but utilizing the SPARCv9 instructions (i.e.
not able to be
Ah, OK.
So we're talking about a 64-bit `gcc` binary (sparc64 bootstrapped this,
yes?) while I'm running a 32-bit `gcc` that can produce 32/64-bit code.
Since these binaries are fundamentally different, perhaps there is some
weirdness with how gcc works then? Honestly, the whole sparc64 vs sparc
6 matches
Mail list logo
