Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com>]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:

> $ file init/built-in.o
> init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1
> (SYSV), not stripped
>
> > From man gcc, i386 section:
>
> -m32
> -m64
>    Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment.  The 32-bit
>    environment sets int, long and pointer to 32
>    bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system.  The
>    64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long
>    and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64
>    architecture.
>
> Lee

 Yes, file shows your gcc does indeed do the right thing with -m64, and 
thank you, but I was already familiar with -m64 (to say nothing of 
passing LDEMULATION to userspace compilations [info binutils, if you 
need to know]).

 So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using 
CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the 
userspace ?  And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary.

Ken
--
 das eine Mal als Trag�die, das andere Mal als Farce