In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
: >> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:40:24PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
: >>> I'm not sure wh
For what it is worth, I'm working on patches that would let one build
and install compiler for machine foo, machine_arch bar sufficiently
well that the cross building system of gnu configure (autoconf) can
use them to build many simple things, and a few complicated ones.
This is similar to the -m3
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> >>> Hmm. My copy of the port sets that for amd64 already. Checking the CVS
> >>> repository, it looks like a number of things have broken/unbroken in
> >>> the last few day
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> >> > > > 3) openoffice doesn't build on amd64, and the i386 build doesn't run
> >> > > >on amd64, so the recommended way to run openoffice on amd64 is to
> >> > > >run the Linux build.
> OOo2.0 should (and generally does) bui
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:43:26PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:40:24PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what you're saying is false - that the compiler can
>>> generate i386 binaries, or that the re
On Sat, 2006-Aug-26 15:43:26 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:40:24PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
>> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
>> > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:00:51PM -0400, M
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:40:24PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:00:51PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > > 1) The compiler can build i386 bi
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:40:24PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:00:51PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > 1) The compiler can build i386 binaries, but the toolchain in general
> > >doesn't do the right thin
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:00:51PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > 1) The compiler can build i386 binaries, but the toolchain in general
> >doesn't do the right thing with the -m32 flag.
> I believe that this may be false because the
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 02:00:51PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> 1) The compiler can build i386 binaries, but the toolchain in general
>doesn't do the right thing with the -m32 flag.
I believe that this may be false because the compiler is
not built with multilib enabled.
> 2) The system can
metaquestions:
The amd64 ilst might be a better place for this, but it's listed as
"for discussion of porting FreeBSD to amd64", and these aren't really
questions about porting FreeBSD to amd64. Maybe the list needs to be
repurposed?
There doesn't appear to be a FAQ (or FAQ section) for
platform-
11 matches
Mail list logo
