This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Sparc64 gcc

To: Mark Hatle <fray at gate dot crashing dot org>
Subject: Re: Sparc64 gcc
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:12:07 +0200
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20000810171203.C30736@cygnus.com> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008101914430.28568-100000@gate.crashing.org>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 07:16:57PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> Unfortunatly/fortunatly I just found them..
> 
> (Yes this doesn't belong here so I'll move to the glibc list.. but until
> then..)
> 
> Apparently glibc when I choose to compile as sparc64 seems to completely
> ignore the fact that it is supposed to provide those items.  I can't find
> any record of the stuff in soft-fp actually compiling. :(

Which glibc are you compiling? The 2.1.92 I built recently surely has them.
As for the gcc bugs you talk about, not all patches required for sparc64 are
in the CVS, have a look at Red Hat 7.0 beta gcc rpm, which should contain all
necessary sparc64 patches to build 64bit glibc.
(Note: it is well possible one more binary incompatible change will happen
in binutils affecting dynamic linkage, so don't build too many binaries with
it yet).

	Jakub

References:
- Re: Sparc64 gcc
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Sparc64 gcc
  - From: Mark Hatle

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]