[SM-Grimoire-Bugs] [Bug 10198] Some CFLAGS suggestions

bugzilla-daemon at bugs.sourcemage.org bugzilla-daemon at bugs.sourcemage.org
Tue Nov 28 12:13:04 EST 2006


http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10198





------- Additional Comments From dmlb2000 at gmail.com  2006-11-28 11:13 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> OK, to make the step complete, here is commit 
> 
> 78bd82efedfe174882a4add6238050d20b2ff448
> 
> applying the same stuff to the intel and generic x86_64 specs.
> I'd like to have a verification of some x86_64 guy that nothing but 
> HOST=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu is enough to get a basic 64 bit x86_64 system 
> compiled from scratch...
> Well, you'd start out with some 64 bit compiler anyway... so if there is some 
> need for -m64 in sorcery's CFLAGS, please speak up.
> 

Well I'd like to mention that the -m64 check is nice for some packages because
they were originally designed and only supported on 32bit (like wine) and their
configure scripts check for this and removing the -m64 flag might cause
configure to pass, since it's only checking for if gcc -c works (iirc this might
have changed) and on 64 bit systems gcc -c test.c -o test.o -m32 does work
successfully, it's really the linking that fails.  I honestly liked having the
-m64 there, even though its redundant because its a nice check for these 32bit
_required_ packages.  I don't have objections to removing the -m64 from the
archspecs if the issue above is addressed properly.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.sourcemage.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.



More information about the SM-Grimoire-Bugs mailing list