compiling pure lfs on sparc
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
> 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