From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 23 18:36:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900491065687; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:36:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E51B8FC1B; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:36:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBNIaneT090868; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:36:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id mBNIanCJ090867; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:36:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:36:49 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Josh Carroll Message-ID: <20081223183649.GA90840@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <7d6fde3d0812222135l753daf54geb37b696c9c1cf8@mail.gmail.com> <20081223173608.068fe9d8@suszko.eu> <8cb6106e0812230955u1bd16932h7ae4ad3fc8c97f28@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0812230955u1bd16932h7ae4ad3fc8c97f28@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, Garrett Cooper , stable Subject: Re: -m32 broken on bi-arch amd64 systems? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:36:49 -0000 On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:55:04PM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote: > > I also noticed that behavior, shouldn't compiler/linker look > > into /usr/lib32 without additional -B switch? > > -- > > regards, Maciej Suszko. > > > > I don't know if it should or should not, but I can confirm that this > behavior was around in 7.0-RELEASE, so it's been that way for quite a > while, at least in the 7 branch. > Sigh. Read the list archives. It's been this way since Peter Wemm first introduce the ability to run i386 binaries on amd64. -- Steve