This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: powerpc64le multilibs and multiarch dir
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:40:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: powerpc64le multilibs and multiarch dir
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130822035750 dot GO3430 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1308232133550 dot 12585 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130826033216 dot GE3430 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Aug 25, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> We (IBM) don't intend to support running both big and little-endian
> processes on the same system in the near future. Perhaps I'm jumping
> the gun in defining the multi-os dirs like /lible and /lib64le.
I'd recommend against multilibs, unless you have a need for them… Life is much simpler (and faster). The usual people to add them are, say the linux people that do a distribution that want to support both, at that point, they'll add it.
Sometimes one might add multilib to enable easier, faster testing. On targets where there are small numbers of users and the developers want to do a multilib to make testing easier (build once, test twice). One can have all the beef in the tree, with the multilib in comments. Easy to turn on, if one wants, but you don't pay the price otherwise.