Bug#190066: gcc-3.3: missing support for x86-64
On Monday 21 April 2003 22:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
> > See also Bug#189350 for the required binutils patch.# ignore 64 bit
> > shlibdeps for now, as on s390 and sparc64
>
> you do this for libgcc1 and libstdc++5 only.
Yes, that was an accident.
> maybe it's time to build
> extra "64" packages. Is there already a naming convention for these
> packages (i.e. libgcc164 or libgcc1-64)?
glibc currently uses the names 'libc6-s390x' and 'libc6-dev-s390x'
(and s/s390x/sparc64/), but that scheme does not scale well.
Wichert Akkerman proposed using 'lib64gcc1', which I think is far
better than the other proposals.
AFAIK, neither Red Hat nor SuSE have invented a specific naming
convention so far, so we can't choose a 'compatible' scheme.
> > --- gcc-3.3-3.3ds5/debian/rules.d/binary-libobjc.mk
> > +++ gcc-3.3-3.3ds5/debian/rules.d/binary-libobjc.mk
> > @@ -15,6 +15,15 @@
> > $(PF)/lib/libobjc_gc.so.*
> > endif
> >
> > +ifeq ($(biarch),yes)
> > + dirs_lobjc += $(PF)/$(lib64)
> > + files_lobjc += $(PF)/$(lib64)/libobjc.so.*
> > +ifeq ($(with_objc_gc),yes)
> > + files_lobjc += $(PF)/$(lib64)/libobjc_gc.so.*
>
> there is already a boehm-gc with 64bit support?
I haven't tested boehm-gc, all I know is that it compiled without
obvious problems.
> > ifeq ($(with_java),yes)
> > - CONFARGS += --enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=xlib
> > + CONFARGS += --enable-java-gc=boehm # --enable-java-awt=xlib
>
> hmm, that's bad. any way to disable this conditionally for the 64bit
> build only?
I didn't find any easy way to do it. The right solution is probably
to have a proper test in libjava/configure.in that checks if libX11
is usable. Right now it only find libX11.so and the headers but breaks
when attempting to link 64 bit awt code against -lX11.
Arnd <><
Reply to: