Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:31:05 +0100 From: Bill Squire <billsf@curacao.n2it.nl> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFree86 build Message-ID: <20040131193105.GA21759@curacao.n2it.nl> In-Reply-To: <20040131080038.GE18624@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <p06001000bc40f83d42eb@[192.168.254.102]> <1075530947.840.2.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040131074830.GA18624@dragon.nuxi.com> <1075535725.1189.4.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040131080038.GE18624@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:00:38AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 02:55:25AM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 02:48, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:35:47AM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote: > > > > What's in your /etc/make.conf? I have CPUTYPE?=?x86_64 for the CPU > > > > type, > > > > > > That is so totally wrong, I don't know where the idea could have come > > > from. There is a single AMD64 implimentation at this time, so there are > > > no choices (or things to tweak). x86_64 is Linux's bastardized spelling > > > of "AMD64". > > > > Hey that's wonderful, but do you have a suggestion as to what the > > CPUTYPE should be? > > Yes, don't set it. Here is a question for David or anybody: CPUTYPE?=. is therefore correct? (or nothing at all?) The two settings below have worked well for some time now. Is this wrong too? CPUTYPE?= amd64 TARGET_ARCH?= amd64 Is there any chance of setting compatibility for "Linux's bastardized spelling" of 'amd64' at the top level? (In /etc/make.conf ?) This is still one (if not the most) common trivial patch in the ports. CXXFLAGS+= -fPIC -DPIC seems to always work. The Linux people say: "It's a workaround -- don't. Placing -fPIC in CFLAGS= sometimes causes the compiler to bomb, while not having it to make some some libs (in the right Makefile) will cause the linker to bomb with a very Linux like "x86_64_32" in the error message. What gives? It certainly is "amd64", but "HAMMER" is still used to ID the "amd64" in the kernel conf? Certainly I like what I have, but if there is one and only one "amd64", calling it by atleast three names looks like trouble. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040131193105.GA21759>