Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:57:57 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> Cc: fbsd_questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, spellberg_robert <emailrob@emailrob.com> Subject: Re: [fbsd_questions] i386 vs amd64, on intel_64 Message-ID: <20101004225757.GK40148@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=e8cBqd6Z=zxOxpMZm_RD=-RODupzprK843=qF@mail.gmail.com> References: <4CAA3030.3090001@emailrob.com> <AANLkTintm_XubwCCRNJci99Y4M6nwbFr=oiKqBw2%2Ba9M@mail.gmail.com> <4CAA3CFE.1060609@emailrob.com> <AANLkTi=e8cBqd6Z=zxOxpMZm_RD=-RODupzprK843=qF@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Oct 04), David Brodbeck said: > On a 64-bit system, if you build a binary with the -m32 flag, it > should run on both i386 and x86-64 systems. A binary built with -m64 > will only run on x86-64. Does that help? Actually, -m32 on amd64 won't generate usable binaries, since /usr/include/machine/* are all amd64 headers and you end up with things like struct FILE with wrong-size elements. There was a thread a few weeks ago discussing this. If you need to generate 32-bit executables, you'll need to do it inside an all-32-bit chroot or a virtual machine. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101004225757.GK40148>