William Stein wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Dr. David Kirkby > <[email protected]> wrote: >> The following might be useful to some, if you want to change the behavior of >> gcc >> by adding options globally, irrespective of whether they given when >> compiling a >> file. It might allow for the easier creation of a 'fat binary' which I >> believe >> is causing problems on some platforms. > > How so? What problems involving fat binaries are you refereeing to > here? Is this something specific, or just a vague "gut feeling"? > > Thanks for the tip below about GCC spec files. I didn't know about that. > > William
Sorry, I thought when you spoke of 'fat binary' it was meant to imply the use of code not making use of newer processors, so it would run on older chips that lack things like SSE2 or later. In which case, one could probably force code suitable for old processors via the specs file. (I do see messages on the support channels with people getting these sorts of error) However, having looked on Wikipedia, I see a 'fat binary' refers to code which will run on multiple instruction sets, such as PowerPC and x86. The specs files are not going to help there. Sorry for my mis-understanding. Dave PS I just compiled that 'c_lib' code (subject of #6595) with Sun's compilers to check if 'cc' found any warnings which gcc missed. There are a few warnings, but nothing that looks serious as serious as those the C++ compiler found. -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
