Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

Ken Moffat
2005-12-09T21:30:26Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 1029 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:

>
> $ file init/built-in.o
> init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1
> (SYSV), not stripped
>
>> From man gcc, i386 section:
>
> -m32
> -m64
> Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment. The 32-bit
> environment sets int, long and pointer to 32
> bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system. The
> 64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long
> and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64
> architecture.
>
> Lee
>

Yes, file shows your gcc does indeed do the right thing with -m64, and
thank you, but I was already familiar with -m64 (to say nothing of
passing LDEMULATION to userspace compilations [info binutils, if you
need to know]).

So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using
CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the
userspace ? And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary.

Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce