[Fwd: Re: Compiling on 64 bit SuSE (Was Re: List OK?)]

[Dan Black]

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:44 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
>   Des Dougan <des at douganconsulting.com>,
>   In a message on Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:30:45 -0700, wrote :
> 
> DD> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> DD> From: Des Dougan <des at DouganConsulting.com>
> DD> To: Maf. King <maf at chilwell.net>
> DD> Subject: Re: Compiling on 64 bit SuSE (Was Re: List OK?)
> DD> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:52:06 -0700
> DD> 
> DD> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 23:47 +0100, Maf. King wrote:
> DD> > Hi Des,
> DD> > 
> DD> > Just to add a couple of cents - I'm in a similar position at the moment, 
> DD> > trying to get a CAD-viewer app to build on my first x86_64 box (SuSE 9.3), 
> DD> > and I feel that you might get more mileage out of trying to build GC as a 32 
> DD> > bit app.
> DD> > 
> DD> > It is what I intend to try next (when I get time)- force everything "down" to 
> DD> > 32 bit, which seems not to be the intended SuSE way, as the /*/lib64 
> DD> > directories seem to be preferred....
> DD> 
> DD> Maf.,
> DD> 
> DD> I'm willing to try that. How does the force to 32 bit happen? Is it the
> DD> --build configure option that does this?
> 
> Well, you need to install the 32-bit compiler, the 32-bit bintools, and
> all of the 32-bit -devel rpms.  And then you won't be able to build
> any 64-bit applications.  You might as well just install the 32-bit
> version of Suse, in which case you might just as well just toss the
> 64-bit processors and get 32-bit ones....
> 

I've run SuSE 9.2 x86_64 in the past.  If I remember correctly, you can
install both 64 bit and 32 bit versions of gcc and you would have gcc
(64 bit) and gcc32.  So you can compile 64 bit and 32 bit apps on the
same box.


> At least that is my understanding.  From the messages, it looks like
> Suse is just like RHEL 3.0 / WBL 3.0 (which is what we have at UMass). 
> 32-bit applications, built on 32-bit system run on the 64-bit system,
> but you can't (in any trivial way) built 32-bit applications on the
> 64-bit box.  Not that there is any real need to do so -- we have plenty
> of 'matching' 32-bit boxes (all running WBL 3.0, just like the x86_64).
> I don't think you really want to use a 64-bit system to build 32-bit
> applications.  You might be able to create a 'cross-build' sort of
> environment, but that is somewhat non-trivial as well.
> 
> DD> 
> DD> Thanks for your feedback,
> DD> 
> DD> Des
> DD> -- 
> DD> 
> DD> Des Dougan, Principal
> DD> Dougan Consulting Group
> DD> 
> DD> Ph: 604-980-2848       Email: des at DouganConsulting dot com     
> DD> 
> DD>         www.DouganConsulting.com
> DD> 
> DD> Design - Implementation - Support
> DD> 
> DD> _______________________________________________
> DD> gnucash-user mailing list
> DD> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> DD> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> DD> 
> DD>                                                                                       
> 
>                                      \/
> Robert Heller                        ||InterNet:   heller at cs.umass.edu
> http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller  ||            heller at deepsoft.com
> http://www.deepsoft.com              /\FidoNet:    1:321/153
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                         
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user