Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andrew Walrond]

I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs ending up 
in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in the -m32 
capability.

Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if a pure 
64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.

Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(

Andrew Walrond

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

> I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs ending up 
> in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in the -m32 
> capability.
>
> Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if a pure 
> 64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.
>
> Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(

Try --disable-multilib,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andrew Walrond]

On Monday 29 Nov 2004 12:37, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
> > I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs
> > ending up in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in the
> > -m32 capability.
> >
> > Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if a
> > pure 64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.
> >
> > Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(
>
> Try --disable-multilib,
>

Tried that, but I still get a /lib64 directory containing
 libgcc_s.so  libgcc_s.so.1

I also use --with-slibdir=/lib to no avail.

Are there likely to be any side affects to just moving these into /lib ?

Andrew

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

> On Monday 29 Nov 2004 12:37, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
>> > I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs
>> > ending up in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in the
>> > -m32 capability.
>> >
>> > Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if a
>> > pure 64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.
>> >
>> > Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(
>>
>> Try --disable-multilib,
>>
>
> Tried that, but I still get a /lib64 directory containing
>  libgcc_s.so  libgcc_s.so.1
>
> I also use --with-slibdir=/lib to no avail.
>
> Are there likely to be any side affects to just moving these into /lib ?

grep glibc and gcc sources for that path - and if nobody uses them
directly (which I assume), there shouldn't be a problem.

But I would really advise to use lib64 - this is the standard on AMD64
as described also in the FHS.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andrew Walrond]

On Monday 29 Nov 2004 14:06, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
> > On Monday 29 Nov 2004 12:37, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
> >> > I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs
> >> > ending up in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in
> >> > the -m32 capability.
> >> >
> >> > Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if
> >> > a pure 64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.
> >> >
> >> > Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(
> >>
> >> Try --disable-multilib,
> >
> > Tried that, but I still get a /lib64 directory containing
> >  libgcc_s.so  libgcc_s.so.1
> >
> > I also use --with-slibdir=/lib to no avail.
> >
> > Are there likely to be any side affects to just moving these into /lib ?
>
> grep glibc and gcc sources for that path - and if nobody uses them
> directly (which I assume), there shouldn't be a problem.

I think it should be safe. I was suprised that --with-slibdir was broken 
though.
>
> But I would really advise to use lib64 - this is the standard on AMD64
> as described also in the FHS.

Yes, I know, but I don't agree with it. It should, logically and aesthetically 
have been standardised as /lib with /lib32 for legacy 32bit libs.

Consider the (much older) fhs description of /lib:

"The /lib directory contains those shared library images needed to boot the 
system and run the commands in the root filesystem, ie. any binaries in /bin 
and /sbin"

Ho hum ;)

Andrew Walrond

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Albert Chin]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:29:36AM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> I want to build a pure 64bit gcc on x86_64, with the 64bit gcc libs ending up 
> in /lib rather than the /lib /lib64. I am not interested in the -m32 
> capability.
> 
> Is this possible/easy? I would accept /lib32 /lib as an alternative if a pure 
> 64bit gcc is not easy to achieve.
> 
> Any help appreciated. Google didn't help this time :(

We do this. But, it's not pretty. We build GCC as usual, then, after
'make install', we:
  $ mv $prefix/lib64/* $prefix/lib
  $ rmdir $prefix/lib64

And then we rebuild all the GCC libs using $prefix/lib as the library
path. This doesn't disable -m32 but -m32 won't work after what we do.
We rebuild the GCC libs like so:
  $ cd $builddir/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
  $ rm libstdc++.la
  $ gmake install LDFLAGS="-Wl,-rpath,$prefix/lib"
    toolexeclibdir="$prefix/lib"
  $ cd $builddir
  $ sed -i -e "\
s!^glibcpp_toolexeclibdir = .*!\
glibcpp_toolexeclibdir = $prefix/lib!; \
s!^toolexeclibdir = .*!\
toolexeclibdir = $prefix/lib!; \
s!^LIBGCJ_LDFLAGS =.*!\
LIBGCJ_LDFLAGS = -Wl,-rpath,$prefix/lib!" i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/Makefile
  $ rm i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/libgcj.la
  $ (gmake all-target-libjava install-target-libjava)

I think the above should fix the .la files as well.

-- 
albert chin (china@thewrittenword.com)

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Joe Buck]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:23:22PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > But I would really advise to use lib64 - this is the standard on AMD64
> > as described also in the FHS.
> 
> Yes, I know, but I don't agree with it. It should, logically and aesthetically 
> have been standardised as /lib with /lib32 for legacy 32bit libs.
> 
> Consider the (much older) fhs description of /lib:
> 
> "The /lib directory contains those shared library images needed to boot the 
> system and run the commands in the root filesystem, ie. any binaries in /bin 
> and /sbin"

Since the whole reason for the LSB is to make executable programs
portable, having /lib contain the 32-bit libraries allows x86-64 systems
to run 32-bit LSB binaries.  If you want a pure 64-bit system, then you
don't want an LSB-compatible system.

Re: Configuring gcc for pure 64bit x86_64

[Andrew Walrond]

On Monday 29 Nov 2004 17:26, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:23:22PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > > But I would really advise to use lib64 - this is the standard on AMD64
> > > as described also in the FHS.
> >
> > Yes, I know, but I don't agree with it. It should, logically and
> > aesthetically have been standardised as /lib with /lib32 for legacy 32bit
> > libs.
> >
> > Consider the (much older) fhs description of /lib:
> >
> > "The /lib directory contains those shared library images needed to boot
> > the system and run the commands in the root filesystem, ie. any binaries
> > in /bin and /sbin"
>
> Since the whole reason for the LSB is to make executable programs
> portable, having /lib contain the 32-bit libraries allows x86-64 systems
> to run 32-bit LSB binaries.  If you want a pure 64-bit system, then you
> don't want an LSB-compatible system.

A single symlink /lib/ld-linux.so.2 -> /lib32/ld-linux-linux.so.2 resolves 
those issues. It just feels wrong to have the legacy files in lib and the 
native files relegated to a non-standard location. The decision has a nasty 
political taste to it, IMO. But in any case, the argument is already lost.

Andrew