Sérgio Durigan Júnior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi Martin,
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 20:04 +0000, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > > This is what you get when you try to build a 64-bit Python on a biarch > > machine (64-bit kernel, 32-bit userspace), using a gcc that generates > > natively 32-bit objects (therefore, you *must* pass the '-m64' option > > for the compiler): > > Or you install an additional, different, C compiler that defaults to > AMD64. I cannot do that. Actually, even if I could, I don't think this is the best way to handle this *Python*'s problem. > > 1) As you could see above, actually you need CFLAGS in order to compile > > Python correctly. As far as I could investigate, the reason you need > > this is because of the tests that are done by configure. Without the > > CFLAGS, configure will think it's building a 32-bit Python, despite of > > the '-m64' flag in BASECFLAGS. So, do we need to propagate CFLAGS > > through Makefile or not? IMHO, we do. > > Not necessarily. I think you can achieve the same effect by specifying > CC="gcc -m64" to configure. I know that. But the purpose of CC flag is to define a compiler to be used in the compilation, and not to specify compiler flags (for that, we have CFLAGS). > > Ohh, before I forget: compilation succeeds if we use only CC='gcc -m64'. > > But again, I don't think this is a solution for this issue :-). > > Why not? See above. Regards, _____________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1628484> _____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
