This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add hppa*64* support to libtool in binutils
- From: Jeff Law <law at porcupine dot slc dot redhat dot com>
- To: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: ross dot alexander at uk dot neceur dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils-owner at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libtool at sources dot redhat dot com, sje at cup dot hp dot com
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:39:37 -0600
- Subject: Re: Add hppa*64* support to libtool in binutils
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200208131637.g7DGbYKR027710@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David Anglin
" writes:
>> At the moment my is not to check in libtool itself for 64bit environment,
>> and only use the $host_cpu variable as a guide to behaviour. I have
>> build gtk+-2.0.x with a patched libtool and it basically behaved itself,
>> using the --build=hppa64-hp-hpux11.00 to tell libtool to expect 64bit code.
>
>I have a partial patch which I enclose below based on what I did to binutils
>libtool. I also have a couple of hacks for automake/autoconf.
>
>> A couple of questions.
>>
>> 1) Do we put check in config.guess to output hppa64-hp-hpux11.xx if it
>> detects a 64bit compiler (ie $CC -E | grep __LP64__ etc)?
>
>That would certainly seem convenient. Also, libtool runs configure
>in its testsuite. When I build it for hppa64, the testsuite unfortunately
>ignores the options used configuring it and as a result configures
>for hppa2.0w even though it is using 64bit tools :-(
Hmm, I hadn't thought of this case. It probably makes sense though.
ie, if I've done something like
CC=<some PA64 compiler>
configure
Then, shouldn't that build a 64bit toolchain? We have (in effect) explicitly
asked for 64bit tools by the setting of CC. It should probably also return
hppa64-whatever as the "guessed" system.
Jeff