This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: aix gcc question
- From: Robert A Nesius <rnesius at ichips dot intel dot com>
- To: <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:59:54 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: aix gcc question
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Robert Nesius writes:
> [paraphrasing]
> | Why not build GCC as a 64-bit application on 64-bit AIX systems?
>
> GCC might be installed in a common location used on both 32-bit
> and 64-bit AIX systems.
I'm aware of those concerns.
> And, until GCC 3.1 development, the PowerPC port
> of GCC would not function correctly in a 64-bit hosted environment.
It's not clear to me why that would be. Is it because the
PowerPC port itself won't be complete until 3.1?
> The GCC option to compile and link in 64-bit mode is -maix64.
Interesting. I didn't ask for a 64-bit build, but there were
a ton of instances of this argument in my build log. I would
think that if I didn't tell gcc to build 64-bit, it wouldn't
generate any 64-bit objects at all.
<pdxfs32 161> /tmp/gcc/aix43-gcc303 # ggrep -- '-maix64' bootstrap.out | wc -l
1400
Is it the case that if the gcc build detects 64-bit hardware,
it builds some pieces of gcc 32-bit and 64-bit?
> If one wants to pass an option to just the first stage of the GCC
> bootstrap process, one may define the STAGE1_CFLAGS variable when invoking
> Make.
Thanks for that hint. I've always wondered how to prevent
the build from passing incompatible vendor flags to the second
and third stages.
-Rob
--
#include <sig.h>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nesius rnesius@ichips.intel.com 503.712.2181
DPG Engineering Computing SW Applications Team