On 2017-Nov-4, at 6:02 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Nov-4, at 5:19 PM, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>
>> Pe 5 nov. 2017 12:57 AM, "Gerald Pfeifer" a scris:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>>> Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes
>>> different for the tar
On 2017-Nov-4, at 5:19 PM, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Pe 5 nov. 2017 12:57 AM, "Gerald Pfeifer" a scris:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> > Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes
> > different for the target listed. . .
> >
> > For example -m32 for amd64 chan
Pe 5 nov. 2017 12:57 AM, "Gerald Pfeifer" a scris:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes
> different for the target listed. . .
>
> For example -m32 for amd64 changes the clang result:
>
> # clang -dumpmachine
> x86_64-unkno
On 2017-Nov-4, at 3:57 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>> Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes
>> different for the target listed. . .
>>
>> For example -m32 for amd64 changes the clang result:
>>
>> # clang -dumpmachine
>> x
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes
> different for the target listed. . .
>
> For example -m32 for amd64 changes the clang result:
>
> # clang -dumpmachine
> x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
>
> ..
>
> # gcc7 -dumpmachine
>
2017-10-29 9:51 GMT+02:00 Eddy Petrișor :
> Various linux distributions
>
> patch uname and its -p code (for
> example). Even for the same kernel
> being in use, giving different
> textual results. -m seemed more
> stable in my limited testing.
> Everyplace that uses uname probably
> needs to be r
Pe 28 oct. 2017 5:31 PM, "Mark Millard" a scris:
On 2017-Oct-28, at 4:11 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2017, at 08:23, Eddy Petrișor
wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
>> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
>> u
On 2017-Oct-28, at 4:11 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2017, at 08:23, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
>> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
>> untrained eyes look like overengineering.
>>
>> .i
On 27 Oct 2017, at 08:23, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>
> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
> untrained eyes look like overengineering.
>
> .if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || ${CPUTYPE:
On 2017-Oct-27, at 3:10 PM, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> 2017-10-27 11:19 GMT+03:00 Mark Millard :
>> On 2017-Oct-26, at 11:23 PM, Eddy Petrișor
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
>>> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
>
2017-10-27 11:19 GMT+03:00 Mark Millard :
> On 2017-Oct-26, at 11:23 PM, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>
>> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
>> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
>> untrained eyes look like overengineering.
>>
>> .if ${TARGET
On 2017-Oct-26, at 11:23 PM, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
> untrained eyes look like overengineering.
>
> .if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || ${CPUTYPE
Hello,
I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
untrained eyes look like overengineering.
.if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || ${CPUTYPE:M*soft*} == "")
TARGET_ABI=-gnueabihf
.elif ${
13 matches
Mail list logo
