From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5474 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2002 20:59:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5442 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 20:59:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ganymede.or.intel.com) (134.134.248.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 20:59:55 -0000 Received: from ichips-ra.pdx.intel.com (ichips-ra-hme1.intel.com [10.7.4.35]) by ganymede.or.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.48 2001/12/13 16:27:50 root Exp $) with ESMTP id UAA08769 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:59:54 GMT Received: from plxw0032.pdx.intel.com (plxw0032.pdx.intel.com [10.7.50.173]) by ichips-ra.pdx.intel.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1/d: internal.m4,v 1.2 1998/11/09 19:18:37 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA09266 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rnesius@localhost) by plxw0032.pdx.intel.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1/d: client-ra.m4,v 1.1 1998/12/24 19:00:55 jamesw Exp jamesw $) with ESMTP id MAA24591 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:59:54 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: plxw0032.pdx.intel.com: rnesius owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:59:00 -0000 From: Robert A Nesius X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: aix gcc question In-Reply-To: <200201241827.NAA24414@makai.watson.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>>>> Robert Nesius writes: > [paraphrasing] > | Why not build GCC as a 64-bit application on 64-bit AIX systems? > > GCC might be installed in a common location used on both 32-bit > and 64-bit AIX systems. I'm aware of those concerns. > And, until GCC 3.1 development, the PowerPC port > of GCC would not function correctly in a 64-bit hosted environment. It's not clear to me why that would be. Is it because the PowerPC port itself won't be complete until 3.1? > The GCC option to compile and link in 64-bit mode is -maix64. Interesting. I didn't ask for a 64-bit build, but there were a ton of instances of this argument in my build log. I would think that if I didn't tell gcc to build 64-bit, it wouldn't generate any 64-bit objects at all. /tmp/gcc/aix43-gcc303 # ggrep -- '-maix64' bootstrap.out | wc -l 1400 Is it the case that if the gcc build detects 64-bit hardware, it builds some pieces of gcc 32-bit and 64-bit? > If one wants to pass an option to just the first stage of the GCC > bootstrap process, one may define the STAGE1_CFLAGS variable when invoking > Make. Thanks for that hint. I've always wondered how to prevent the build from passing incompatible vendor flags to the second and third stages. -Rob -- #include ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Nesius rnesius@ichips.intel.com 503.712.2181 DPG Engineering Computing SW Applications Team