On 11/02/11 12:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 2 November 2011 06:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> >> On 10/31/11 19:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 31 October 2011 17:38, Rainer Orth wrote: >>>> Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> I'm uncertain if Solaris 8/x86 still supports bare i386 machines, so it >>>>>>> might be better to keep the default of pentiumpro instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Solaris 8 won't run on anything less than pentium, I recently >>>>>> convinced someone else to stop building GCC for i386 on Solaris: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-10/msg00005.html >>> >>> Quite. In fact there are *very* good reasons not to configure for >>> 80386: libstdc++'s configure uses the default arch being configured >>> for, and disables a number of features on i386 because it doesn't >>> support the required atomic ops. >>> >>> So by configuring for i386 you will distribute a GCC package that is >>> missing useful features, but supports an ancient architecture that >>> Solaris doesn't even run on. >>> >>> You should configure for pentium-pc-solaris2.8 or use --with-arch-32=pentium >> >> When not configuring with '--host=i386-pc-solaris2.8', it is config.guess >> that detects 'i386-pc-solaris2.8', just tried here with most recent >> config.guess on i86pc Solaris2.10, result is 'i386-pc-solaris2.10'. >> >> Actually, it is uname showing the 'i386' on Solaris: >> $ uname -p # Prints the current host's ISA or processor type. >> i386 >> $ uname -i # Prints the name of the platform. >> i86pc >> >> So I'd wonder if '--host=i386-pc-solaris2.8' actually does make any >> difference here. > > It's redundant if you *want* to build for that host, but the whole > point is that building for i386 is usually a very bad idea, so > --host=i586-pc-solaris2.8 would be better.
Erm - what I want to say is that I would really wonder if it does have /any/ influence (binary-wise) to gcc on Solaris (unlike Linux) whether to configure for i386 or i586 (via '--host' or even '--target'). /haubi/
