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]

Re: 64 bit gcc?

To: Alex Zhukov <szhukov at priocom dot com>
Subject: Re: 64 bit gcc?
From: Jack Cummings <jack at ice dot mudshark dot org>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:43:41 -0700
Cc: 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,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <3BCEF43A.FB014AC2@larc.nasa.gov> <20011018125037.A28420@us.ibm.com> <7746652BE7B.AAA442A@epsilon.priocom.com>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:35:24AM +0300, Alex Zhukov wrote:
 
> 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` 
> reports this:
> > /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 
> sparcv9-sun-solaris2.8.  

Hmm. I've compiled all that, and more, using gcc sparcv9-sun-solaris2.7. 

I noticed problems with:

perl-5.6.1 
gnome-libs-1.4.1.2

Which led me to believe that the people who maintain the compiler might 
know what they are talking about when they say it has problems. :)

--Jack

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 64 bit gcc?
  - From: Alex Zhukov

References:
- 64 bit gcc?
  - From: John Young
- Re: 64 bit gcc?
  - From: Janis Johnson
- Re: 64 bit gcc?
  - From: Alex Zhukov

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