kevin diggs <diggskevin38@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am trying to build gcc 4.1.2 from a source RPM (Yellowdog Linux 6.1 > I think) on a 64-bit powerpc machine (G5). It is not working. I think > the source rpm only builds correctly on a 32-bit machine. It keeps > trying to find stuff in .../32/... that is not there. You may need to install the 32-bit development environment. It's often a separate package on 64-bit distros. > Also, before I > started hacking on the spec file it was building the compiler as a > 64-bit program. Now it can't seem to find libsupc++.a. That is not > correct, right? xgcc also defaulted to building things in 64-bit (with > no -m64 option). Generally that is wrong too? I don't know what your spec file looks like, but if you build a native compiler on a 64-bit machine it will normally build 64-bit code by default. > i) Is the compiler ever built as a 64-bit program itself? Yes. > ii) "Normally" the compiler should default to producing 32-bit > objects, right (irregardless of what size machine the compiler itself > was built on)? Not really. If you don't pass an explicit --target option when you run configure, the compiler will normally generate native code for your machine. If you are on a 64-bit machine, the compiler will generate 64-bit code by default. > iii) What is the difference between directories ".../64/..." and > ".../lib64/..."? Is it a convention? Should I see one or the other? Different GNU/Linux distros have made different choices in this area. I don't think there is any right answer to these questions. I odn't know anything about Yellowdog Linux. Ian
