On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > >> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel >> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the >> models I mentioned) but the chance of error is there. The -mno-xxx >> flags would safeguard against it. > > I have one of the earliest Atom chips. Some people have a hard time > believing this, but it's a 32-bit-only chip; a couple of lines from > /proc/cpuinfo > > model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 @ 1.33GHz > address sizes : 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual > > Intel gives the CPU's specs at... > > http://ark.intel.com/products/35466/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z520-512K-Cache-1_33-GHz-533-MHz-FSB > > ...where it specifically says... > > Intel 64 # No > > I want to make absolutely certain that "illegal instructions" are not > compiled for it.
You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit objects on the 64-bit machine.
