This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 64 bit gcc?
- To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, John Young <j dot e dot young at larc dot nasa dot gov>, tom at tom dot cc dot wayne dot edu
- Subject: Re: 64 bit gcc?
- From: Alex Zhukov <szhukov at priocom dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:35:24 +0300
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Priocom
- References: <3BCEF43A.FB014AC2@larc.nasa.gov> <20011018125037.A28420@us.ibm.com>
Few weeks ago I have compiled gcc(c c++ ...) v3.0.1 for
sparcv9-sun-solaris2.8 and it works just _perfect_ for me with Sun's binutils
(if one can call the as ar nm ld etc. this way).
#file `which gcc`
> /usr/local/bin/gcc: ELF 64-bit MSB executable SPARCV9 Version 1,
dynamically linked, not stripped
As a test I did full recompile of grep, gawk, mc, apache and few other
widely used progs, all they work just fine.
NOTE: I look through the the gcc mailing not very often, so I may have missed
something, but I still dont see any problem using the _standard gcc 3.0.1 on
On Thursday 18 October 2001 22:50, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 11:09:32AM -0400, Thomas R. Stevenson wrote:
> > I'm trying to create a 64-bit version of gcc (3.0.1) for a SunBlade
> > 100 with Solaris 8.
> > I've tried using sparc64-sun-solaris2.8 and sparcv9-sun-solaris2.8.
> > The "configuration" script complains about sparc64-sun-solaris2.8, and
> > the "make bootstrap" command fails with the following errors:
> > ...
> > Am I doing something wrong, or can't I create a 64-bit version of gcc
> > (3.0.1) for solaris 8 on a SunBlade 100?
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:24:42AM -0400, John Young wrote:
> > Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I
> > am not sure where to go...
> > I was trying to build pidentd and got the message:
> > configure: error:
> > ERROR: gcc doesn't support 64-bit compilation on 'sparc-sun-solaris2.8'
> > yet.
> > Please read the INSTALL file for more information.
> > INSTALL says:
> > * Some information for Solaris 7 users:
> > If you want to run pidentd on a 64-bit kernel, you need to compile with a
> > compiler capabable of producing 64-bit binaries. Both gcc 2.8.1 and egcs
> > 1.1 cannot do this, so you need to use SunPro C 5.0.
> > Is this planned for a future release of gcc?
> The question of whether GCC supports 64-bit binaries on sparc comes up
> quite frequently. Recently the following text was added to the
> "Host/Target Specific Installation Notes" for GCC 3.0:
> Starting with Solaris 7, the operating system is capable of executing
> 64-bit SPARC V9 binaries. GCC 3.0 doesn't properly support this yet.
> Although some patches or recipes to enable this support have been posted
> to various newsgroups and mailing lists, we recommend against using
> them, since the compiler may either crash or, worse, silently generate
> bad code. If you really need this capability now, you might try a CVS
> version of GCC 3.1, which will fully support this. If all you want is
> code tuned for the UltraSPARC CPU, you should try the
> -mtune=ultrasparc option instead, which should be safe from
> those bugs and produce code that, unlike full 64-bit code, can still run
> on non-UltraSPARC machines.
> Those notes also include, for both 3.0 and the CVS mainline (and probably
> for 2.95, but I haven't looked there):
> GCC version 2.95 is not able to compile code correctly for
> sparc64 targets. Users of the Linux kernel, at least,
> can use the sparc32 program to start up a new shell
> invocation with an environment that causes configure to
> recognize (via uname -a) the system as sparc-*-* instead.
> The new text in the 3.0 installation instructions would be useful to
> have in the mainline version as well, since that is the one that is
> accessible from the GCC web site and is more likely to be read.
> Would it be helpful if the build status lists for GCC 3.0 and 2.95
> listed a few would-be popular targets that are explicitly not
> Tom and John, where could we have put this information so that you
> could have found it easily?