Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:11:22AM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: >> PS - This addition seems like overkill as most multilib setups default to >> m64. It appears Jeremy is catering to those "unsupportable with current >> build method" non-standard 32/64-bit setups such as Alex's Debian Lenny >> example. > > Yes, it was added originally to cover that scenario, but I'm no longer > "catering" to that host. > > When it came time to commit a few necessary changes today, I decided to > leave it in since it will always force binutils and gcc to build 64-bit on > pass1. As you say it is probably unnecessary even there, but at least by > including it, we know without doubt that we're getting 64-bit, even on > multilib hosts. Thereafter, of course, it isn't necessary at all since > we'll be using our 64-bit only compiler. > > If you think it's better to leave it out entirely, please explain why.
Because it's *COMPLETELY* unnecessary. There is absolutely no need at all to force the pass1's to be 64-bit. It's irrelevant if they happen to be 32-bit binaries. What *is* relevant is whether they produce 64-bit code or not. Please see my other posting where I solved the Debian Lenny issue. My build worked perfectly even though binutils-pass1 and the stage1 gcc were themselves compiled as 32-bit binaries. The critical thing is the `target': checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu checking target system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
