Scott L. Burson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Scott L. Burson wrote: >>> No, I don't mean that the build process only attempts to build 64-bit >>> libraries; I mean that even the libraries that the build process >>> intends to build as 32-bit get built as 64-bit also. >> I don't see how you managed that. Unless your target defaults to 64-bit, >> this is impossible. > > I forced -m64 to be passed everywhere (see my first post in the thread > for the details). Well, foolishly or not, I was assuming that you were doing what I suggested. :-) > Wouldn't your suggestion (of making a gcc script > that called the real gcc with -m64) have had the same effect? Nope. > Oh... > maybe not, because the newly built compiler would have been used to > compile the libraries. Yep. > Anyway, I'm up and running now; I just built the default way (without > -m64), installed, then copied the lib directory from the resulting > install tree over the lib directory produced by the 64-bit build. OK. Andrew.
