sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "David Michael Leo Brown Jr." <dmlb2000 AT excite.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 03:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
>>>Why not make archspecs for your architecture instead of modifying someone
>>>else's
>>>to work on yours?
>>
>>
>> I'm not suggesting changing, I'm suggesting integrating the current
>> x86_[32,64]
>> files to k8_[32,64] files then changing x86_[32,64] files to properly
>> advertize
>> what the file name suggests.
>>
>> - David Brown
>
>Interesting! I did know that x86-64 was the generic name for Intel(r)
>and AMD(r) 64 bits processor architecture, but I did not have the
>possibility to check anything. The k8 seems now obsolete, since in gcc
>3.4.3, you have the more readable name athlon64. However, I did not see
>x86-64 in the gcc man page (however it works with gcc 3.4.3).
Yeah I manually changed the x86_64 file to -march=x86-64 and it works fine
>As far as the ISO is concerned, and since we are producing a "i486" ISO
>for anything which is compatible with i486 (ie, i586 and i686), I think
>we should produce an x86-64 ISO that would work both on Intel(r) and
>AMD(r) 64 bits processor. That would mean 3 archspecs:
>
>x86-64 : generic 64 bits
>athlon64 : amd 64 bits specific
>em64t : intel 64 bits specific (except that it is currently the
>same as
>x86-64, right?)
As far as the ISO's are concerned I used your x86_64 test3 iso to install...
after a bunch of fiddleing I have a pure 64 bit system... no multilib... and
I'm building up a personal grimoire that has fixes for spells to use
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for the host (several don't seem to see it as valid)
As for the specfiles yes to be more specific you need three even though there
isn't going to be any difference between the generic x86-64 and intel em64t
other than the filename... I checked gcc 4.1 and they haven't gotten in there
either so I don't expect gcc to have that arch spec for a while...
-- David Brown
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
-
[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, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
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
-
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,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.