Re: building slrn on sparc
- To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
- Cc: ja2morri@csclub.uwaterloo.ca, tretkowski@inittab.de, debian-sparc@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: building slrn on sparc
- From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:53:48 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040301195348.GA28945@scowler.net>
- In-reply-to: <20040227133650.162179b7.davem@redhat.com>
- References: <kfh3c9dpsuy.fsf@perpugilliam.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20040214161431.GA16695@rollcage.inittab.de> <kfhn07lo1qv.fsf@perpugilliam.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20040214144308.752a1be8.davem@redhat.com> <20040227154520.GA24564@scowler.net> <20040227103435.070b9d98.davem@redhat.com> <20040227190135.GA26507@scowler.net> <20040227110900.21b6b07b.davem@redhat.com> <20040227213314.GA28209@scowler.net> <20040227133650.162179b7.davem@redhat.com>
> In fact, this behavior comes from a desire to do the right thing
> when building and bootstrapping gcc. GCC's bootstrap process expects
> that if the build/host system is sparc64-* that the system compiler,
> as well as the GCC binary produced by the gcc build itself, will both
> produce 64-bit executables by default. If this is not the case, the
> GCC bootstrap will flat out fail.
I'm pretty sure that when I bootstrapped gcc 3.3 last year, uname was
still returning 'sparc', and everything behaved exactly the way I wanted
it to.
Reply to: