This is the mail archive of the 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: questions of gcc compiling.

Jack Cummings writes:

> There seems to be lots of demand for 64 bit compilers, most of which 
> comes from the misunderstanding of the benefits of 64 bit binaries. 
> My understanding is that 64 bit binaries:

> 2) Require a more complicated development environmnet to build. 

Why do you think so?  I wouldn't call using gcc -m64/cc -xarch=v9
complicated.  The complications of building a sparcv9-sun-solaris2.[78]
compiler based on GCC 3.0.x sources shouldn't be an indication: GCC 3.1
will build a bi-arch (capable of building both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries)
compiler for the sparc-sun-solaris2.[78] configurations by default, so
there's no need for either a 32x64-bit cross-compiler or an existing 64-bit
compiler (either gcc or Sun cc) to get a working compiler capable of
building 64-bit binaries.

I'm not sure about the relative advantages of the bi-arch and native
sparcv9 configurations, though.  While the bi-arch config is certainly far
more convenient (and you get by with a single gcc supporting both modes),
there may be advantages of the sparcv9-only mode (some better
optimizations?).  Maybe the SPARC maintainers can comment?

These issues should be documented in install.texi.  I can draft something
once I fully understand the issues.


Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University

Email: ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

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