sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:01:07 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Michael Leo Brown Jr. wrote:
| I was looking at the x86-64 specfile and was surprised to see that it
wasn't
| x86-64 the -march flag was set to k8 for gcc 3.4, when it should be
x86-64.
|
| I understand that there's some people in sourcemage who have amd64
processors
| however, I don't, I have the intel version that uses the x86-64
specifications
| (called extended memory 64 technology)
|
| gcc doesn't have em64t as a valid arch spec (not even in v4.1) the
closest thing I
| can pass to gcc is x86-64
|
| I would propose a change to the specfiles and move the current x86-64
and x86-32
| to k8-64 and k8-32, and change the x86-64 and x86-32 to the more generic
| -march=x86-64, also I would change the x86-[64,32] gcc 3.3 to
- -march=pentium4
|
| This way would provide arch specs for both amd and intel
implementations of the
| arch specification x86-64.
|
| -- David Brown
This isn't quite on topic, but it's pretty close.
What are the archspecs for an Athlon 64?
I've heard of the following and I don't know which is correct:
* k8
* athlon64
* athlon-64
* x86_64 (non amd specific?)
I'm just slightly confused, and googling for "gcc arch specs athlon 64
"-march" " didn't help me.
I did find this,
http://benoit.papillault.free.fr/sourcemage/sorcery.php.en, but even
then I've not been helped, since he used -march=athlon-xp to make it build.
Thanks,
David
- --
One login to rule them all, one login to find them. One login to bring
them all, and in the web bind them.
http://shlrm.org
http://www.zoominfo.com/DavidKowis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidkowis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCUg2DtgErhgxHMHsRAgo4AJ9FFUl4K81+b9vNGN8luAFD3nrbxACfXTwW
ml6RMYaOybGYOpQiTeSfwm0=
=yZga
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Andrew, 04/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, David Kowis, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Eric Sandall, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Andrew, 04/05/2005
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/04/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Andrew, 04/04/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.