Re: powerpc64 gcc compiler ...

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 08:12:36AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > well, you need a lib64c6-dev as well. Unsure how much prepared the
> > glibc sources are and if the glibc maintainers are willing to include
> > such packages for sarge.
> 
> Absolutely not... the base system is frozen, remember?
> 
> I don't know how easily you can build 64-bit gcc with the current
> packaging, without a 64-bit glibc.  I imagine we try to build both
> shared libgcc's which will fail.  Let's wait on this until after sarge.

Absolutely not ... :)

This is based on the gcc 3.4 package currently in experimental, so
should cause no problem whatsover with regard to the sarge release
cycle. And the wait for after sarge, altough reasonable now that sarge
seems to be near release, is only a receipt for inactivity. Furthermore
i have time now to work on this, but who knows if i will have time to
work on this later on, so waiting is no solution. 

So, let's implement this in experimental now, which is the right place
for this kind of stuff, and if it is reasy before the sarge freeze,
fine, if not, well, we would at least have many month of headstart on
this.

As said, my plan was to have at least a gcc 3.4 biarch compiler, and be
able to build 64bit kernels, and let the glibc/userland issues for
post-sarge.

That said, i have close to zero deep understanding on how glibc and gcc
interact on this issue, and what is going on about libgcc. I am told by
the #ppc64 folk that i should compile gcc with the ppc64 target, but
have it default to 32bit code by default. My early tries for this try to
generate a lib64gcc1, and fails, as you said. Do you have any wisdom to
share with me about why this is the case ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther