On 4/16/06, Christopher Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a pain. Is Fedora the only distro that is _this_ difficult?
Wow, Fedora is not even letting me install i386 -devel packages even
when I force it to use an i386 based repository! Seems my only
options now are to hand install the rpms
On 4/16/06, Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Sunday, April 16, 2006 6:30 AM -0700 Christopher Stone
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ugh... I *do* have a 32-bit libexpat installed...
>
> OK, so your system ld was configured... oddly. Add --verbose to the ld line
> (or -Wl,--verbose
--On Sunday, April 16, 2006 6:30 AM -0700 Christopher Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ugh... I *do* have a 32-bit libexpat installed...
OK, so your system ld was configured... oddly. Add --verbose to the ld line
(or -Wl,--verbose to the gcc line) and see where it's looking for the
libra
On 4/16/06, Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:35 AM -0700 Christopher Stone
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It gives the same error as before when there was no -m option present.
> > It searches the lib64 dirs for libexpat, says its incompatible, then
> >
--On Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:35 AM -0700 Christopher Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It gives the same error as before when there was no -m option present.
It searches the lib64 dirs for libexpat, says its incompatible, then
at the end says it cant find libexpat.
That's because you don'
On 4/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 4/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >>> Adding LD="ld -m32" is redundant and not necessary since you already
> >>> d
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
On 4/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
Adding LD="ld -m32" is redundant and not necessary since you already
defined it in CC.
This does not always work.
adding CC="gcc -m32" should be
On 4/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Adding LD="ld -m32" is redundant and not necessary since you already
> > defined it in CC.
>
> This does not always work.
>
> > adding CC="gcc -m32" should be enough, but it's not. It still
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christopher Stone wrote:
Adding LD="ld -m32" is redundant and not necessary since you already
defined it in CC.
This does not always work.
adding CC="gcc -m32" should be enough, but it's not. It still tries
to link against my 64 bit libraries.
This is why you define LD
By "latest" I literally mean "latest" as in CVS. And, yes, if
*breaks* gcc. No, I'm not talking about a compile error or warning,
I'm talking about actualy gcc breakage, as in there is a bug in gcc.
adding CC="gcc -m32" should be enough, but it's not. It still tries
to link against my 64 bit li
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, F.J. McCloud wrote:
Meanwhile, Christopher is right that you also have to link a
32-bit compile against your 32-bit libraries (most likely
/usr/lib32 and X11LIB = /usr/X11R6/lib32 depending on how your
distro has done this). Sorry I forgot about this in the last
email; been
x86drc.c should compile fine, but it definitely won't run as it
is generating non-amd64 instructions. The hooks are there that
someone someday could write a "x86_64drc.c" but so far, AFAIK,
no one has. I once tried doing it myself but just haven't had
time. (FYI, the first place to start is fixi
Christopher Stone wrote:
... since the most recent src/x86drc.c breaks gcc under 64bit
compiles.
What do you mean 'most recent' ?
1.0.4 compiles file for me - gcc version 3.4.5; Athlon 64-X2
I've uploaded my Makefile.unix if it helps:
http://cedar.maddogsbreakfast.com/makefile.unix.gz
cheer
Okay, there is one more issue it seems. The linker looks in
/usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib when trying to link against libm and
libexpat. How do you tell the linker to look for libraries in
/usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64?
On 4/15/06, Christopher Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I added
Okay, I added -m32 to the CC part and not CFLAGS, and this seems to
work. Thanks!
Lawrence: would it be possible to add this to the makefile as
something that can be uncommented or commented out? I think it would
be useful since the most recent src/x86drc.c breaks gcc under 64bit
compiles.
On
Yes you do. Add -m32 again there.
IIRC you also need to pick i386 instead of amd64 in the
makefile.
(Been awhile since I've done this but that's how it worked
prior to xmame-0.99.)
--- Christopher Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have a makefile that will make a 32 bit version
> of
Does anyone have a makefile that will make a 32 bit version of xmame
on an 86_64 architecture? I tried adding -m32 to CFLAGS, but it fails
at:
usr/bin/ld: warning: i386 architecture of input file
`xmame.obj/cpu/m68000/m68kmake.o' is incompatible with i386:x86-64
output
Generating M68K source file
17 matches
Mail list logo
