Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?) | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:40:02 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 21:30 +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > > $ file init/built-in.o > > init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1 > > (SYSV), not stripped > > > >> From man gcc, i386 section: > > > > -m32 > > -m64 > > Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment. The 32-bit > > environment sets int, long and pointer to 32 > > bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system. The > > 64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long > > and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64 > > architecture. > > > > Lee > > > > Yes, file shows your gcc does indeed do the right thing with -m64, and > thank you, but I was already familiar with -m64 (to say nothing of > passing LDEMULATION to userspace compilations [info binutils, if you > need to know]). > > So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using > CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the > userspace ? And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary.
It seems like CROSS_COMPILE= should not be needed if my standard gcc binary can produce x86-64 code. I was hoping it would be possible to build an x86-64 kernel using the Ubuntu packages and that I would not have to resort to building my own toolchain. And it seems that it's supposed to work, but doesn't.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |