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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> If --enable-multilib or --disable-multilib are passed then things > are performed as today, more or less. If these flags are not > explicitly given then gcc has to do something different This sounds reasonable. We could have a specific check, with the following cumulative conditions (to make it as unobtrusive as possible for current users). If: 1. we build a native compiler 2. on x86_64-linux (and possible other x86_64 targets whose maintainers want to opt in) 3. and neither --enable-multilib nor --disable-multilib were passed then: a. we check that the native compiler can handle 32-bit, by compiling a test executable with the "-m32" option b. if we fail, we error out of the configure process, indicating that this can be overriden with --{enable,disable}-multilib I suspect this might catch (at configure time) the large majority of users who currently get stuck at stage 2 with the "gnu/stubs-32.h" error, while being invisible to a large majority of the power users. Question: what are the pitfalls of the test proposed above? are there typical use cases that I have not thought of, and that would trigger this check? FX PS: I attach a tentative patch implementing such as check in configure.ac.
Attachment:
64bit_configure_patch.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |