Re: gcc -m32 option on amd64.

On 2007-07-30 09:24, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 17:55 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2007-Jul-27 17:32:35 +0100, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >gcc on amd64 is capable of generating i386 code, but ld on amd64 is
>> >incapable of linking i386 code together without serious amounts of work.
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "incapable of linking i386 code"?
>> The stock ld can definitely link i386 code:
>> turion% ld -V
>> GNU ld version 2.15 [FreeBSD] 2004-05-23
>>   Supported emulations:
>>    elf_i386_fbsd
>>    elf_x86_64_fbsd
>> turion% 
>> 
>> There is a problem that the 32-bit pathnames on FreeBSD/amd64 are
>> different to the 32-bit pathnames on FreeBSD/i386 (ie an i386
>> executable built on amd64 will point to /libexec/ld-elf32.so.1,
>> rather than /libexec/ld-elf.so.1) so the result won't execute on a
>> FreeBSD/i386 box - but I don't see that as a problem with ld, rather
>> the configuration.
> 
> Sure. By 'incapable of linking i386 code' I mean that the default
> toolchain of gcc invoking ld to assemble libraries and object files
> into executables is incapable of doing so when compiling i386 code. I
> say without serious amounts of work because, as you point out, it is
> possible to do.

The default toolchain can link 32-bit code with -B /usr/lib32 path
options.  This should work fine for the base system binaries.

I expect ports compiled without -B will not cooperate very 'smoothly'
with 32-bit port builds, but that's a different thing from being
completely incapable, I guess.

> Any other english sentences you need explaining?

That's a bit too harsh.  The FreeBSD people are known for their
civilized manners, so can we tone things down a bit everyone? :-)

_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"