compiling pure lfs on sparc

Juan York juan at digitalkindred.org
Wed Apr 23 23:27:40 PDT 2003


On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:11:02 +0000, Adam Trilling wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
>>
>> I'm guessing here but it looks like the assembler is producing output for
>> ultrasparc 64bit where it should be assembling for sparc
> 
> He said he was using a netra x1.  This machine uses sparcv9.

yeah it's a sun4u which is a 64bit processor

> 
> I've never tried to build LFS on a sparc, but I've built all sorts of
> stuff in Solaris.  Make sure your toolchain is consistent (ie binutils,
> gcc, and glibc are all built for the same target).  In this case, you
> probably want sparc64-sun-linux-gnu.  Compile everything for 64-bit.

Researching this I came acrossed some lists that said that not all apps
really benefit from being compiled 64bit. In some cases it leaves you
worse off since 64bit apps are more processor/memory/disk space intensive.
The consensus seems to be only a few apps such as the system kernel, gcc
should be compiled as 64bit apps.

This isn't any personal knowledge just what I got from what I've read. If
i'm wrong please correct me. 

> 
> Better yet, build a cross-compile toolchain.  It's entirely possible that
> your host distro is hosed in some subtle way the PLFS gurus have yet to
> encounter.  Add --target=sparc64-sun-linux-gnu to the configure scripts
> for the first builds of gcc, glibc, and binutils.  That way, you'll
> generate a toolchain that will run on your host and will generate
> binaries for the same target.  You may need to play with paths to get this
> toolchain to be the default.

If I do need multiple copies of everything the paths will probably be a
pita.

> 
> good luck.
> 
> Adam Trilling
> agt10 at columbia.edu

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list