Re: gcc defaults [was Re: building slrn on sparc]
Quoting Ben Collins (bcollins@debian.org):
> > > In fact, you can ask Ben, that this is where the behavior change came
> > > from. After I discussed this very specific issues with Ben over the
> > > course of several weeks.
> >
> > Why not discuss it with GCC maintainers? If you can explain the issue
> > I may be able to help, though I'm probably out-of-date on the build
> > process, and I'd prefer not to have to do much experimenting with
> > bootstraps on the hardware available.
>
> By default you don't get 64-bit builds. If you do not install
> libc6-dev-sparc64.
I'd argue about the "default" part. build-essential in sarge pulls
in libc6-dev-sparc64. And "apt-get build-dep anything" pulls in
build-essential. I only recently started making custom linux-sparc
packages (our mgmt switched from Solaris/sparc+Debian/x86 to Debian
on both supported hw platforms), and got bitten by this, packages
would try to build 64-bit and fail (or worse, succeed :-).
> Dave didn't like this, but it's a compromise we came
> to just because of this very point.
AFAIR, gcc on solaris-sparc defaults to 32-bit, just like Sun's
WorkShop 6 cc does, so that behaviour is somewhat consistent.
However they default to 32-bit even when there is 64-bit build
support installed. I'm sure you've chewed on all this already, but
coming from Solaris, I didn't expect the default build platform to
change.
Maybe it would make sense to remove libc6-dev-sparc64 from
build-essential, and make something like build-essential-sparc64?
This would break the build of a number of packages that need to do
a 64-bit build, wouldn't it?
> Even if you install libc6-dev-sparc64, you can override the default
> easily by doing "touch /etc/disable_64_gcc".
>
> Sure it needs to be documented, in the release notes for sarge.
That, however, _is_ an additional step needed to get the behaviour
from our previous Solaris envirnment.
Regards,
Zoran
Reply to: