On 07/24/2013 11:32 AM, David Starner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote: >>> I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't >>> have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm >>> building primarily for myself, and if I did have to target a 32-bit >>> environment, I'd likely have to mess with more stuff then just the >>> compiler. >> >> No, you probably wouldn't. Just use -m32 and you'd be fine. > > That's assuming that the hypothetical 32-bit x86 system I was > targeting was running GNU libc6 2.17 (as well as whatever libraries > I need, with version numbers apropos of Debian Unstable.) > Conceivable, but not something I'd bet on. I've got 3 ARM (Android) > computers around, and 3 AMD-64 computers, and I can't imagine why > I'd need an x86 computer. There is one x86 program I run (zsnes), > but if Debian stopped carrying it, it probably wouldn't be worth the > time to compile it myself.
No, I'm assuming you want to build and run an x86 program on your own system. -32 is not in any sense a cross-compiler. >>> If you can't find a way to detect this error, I can't >>> imagine many people would have a problem with turning off multilibs on >>> x86-64; it's something of a minority setup. >> >> I don't think it is, really. > > Really? Really. > Because my impression is that on Unix, the primary use of the > C compiler has always been to compile programs for the system the > compiler is running on. So, use the system's C compiler. > And x86-32 is a slow, largely obsolete chip; it's certainly useful > to emulate, but I suspect any developer who needs to build for it > knows that up-front and is prepared to deal for it in the same way > that someone who needs an ARM or MIPS compiler is. > >> Anyone building GCC for themself has a reason for doing so. > > At the current time, Debian's version of GNAT is built from older > sources then the rest of GCC; if I want a 4.8 version of GNAT, I have > to build it myself. So you have a specialized use. Fair enough; you can disable multilib. I would just install GCC's build dependencies and build with the defaults. >> Right, so it should be built the right way. > > The right way? The default way, then. > If I don't want to build support for obsolete systems I don't use, > I'm building it the wrong way? If I were building ia64-linux-gnu, I > wouldn't have to enable support for x86-linux-gnu, but because I'm > building amd64-linux-gnu, if I don't, I'm building it the wrong way? > > I don't see this resistance to making it work with real systems and > real workloads. This feature is not useful to many of us, and fails > the GCC build in the middle. That's not really acceptable. There is no resistance whatsoever to making it work with real systems and real workloads. The problem is that you don't know that people running on 64-bit hardware often choose to compile -32 and run -32 locally. Andrew.
