> I don't think gcc ever exports any gmp code into its output. Rather, gcc > just uses gmp for its own internal purposes.
I don't think that's my concern. My question is whether gcc will build SSE-4.2 instructions into code just because the host can use them. Seems something like that happened--Conroes only have SSE-3. AMD's definition of x86-64 only goes up to SSE2! I was hoping the cross-compiling process we use might have prevented that. > gcc only uses gmp under C compilation for optimization, then one might > be able to get around an "incompatible-CPU-compiled" gmp if one > disables gcc optimization: > > CFLAGS='-O0' > CXXFLAGS='-O0' > > This might be helpful if you just need to recompile something (maybe even > gmp itself) to rescue a "hosed" machine. Then, after gmp is working, you > can recompile it again with normal optimizations. This time the --build=x86_64-unknown-pc-linux (IIRC) worked for me, but that may be something to add to the box on the GMP page in future releases. I'm going to ask LFS-dev to move that box up, before the configure parameters. > (If you ever try this, do let us know if it works as it might help > someone out of a jam one day.) OK, but it'll be next build. It ain't broke no more, so I ain't fixing it again. > > Cheers, > > Mike Thanks, Mike -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
