From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789A4138CC5 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAAABE0886; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D568DE0850 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:07 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIMAGvvdVTAqylp/2dsb2JhbAA3HYE2oW+BCIF1AQEEATocKAsLIQwHEg8FJTeIAAmiCIwKAikQCAICAh0Dgz4DJBQEAQkMgjtjBI1Vh2GFbY0Y X-IPAS-Result: AtIMAGvvdVTAqylp/2dsb2JhbAA3HYE2oW+BCIF1AQEEATocKAsLIQwHEg8FJTeIAAmiCIwKAikQCAICAh0Dgz4DJBQEAQkMgjtjBI1Vh2GFbY0Y X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,1,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="114347221" Received: from 192-171-41-105.cpe.pppoe.ca (HELO waltdnes.org) ([192.171.41.105]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2015 17:51:05 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:04 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:04 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code? Message-ID: <20150324015104.GA32732@waltdnes.org> References: <20150319015612.GA7416@waltdnes.org> <2482967.XKl8GgfQej@navi> <1570093.qMVvttJaZ4@navi> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1570093.qMVvttJaZ4@navi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: f3de2565-22cd-4bee-b8e5-fb3be7c3a4c2 X-Archives-Hash: e5aa53ce1383d308a6cf9bd5e6330388 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel > lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the > models I mentioned) but the chance of error is there. The -mno-xxx > flags would safeguard against it. I have one of the earliest Atom chips. Some people have a hard time believing this, but it's a 32-bit-only chip; a couple of lines from /proc/cpuinfo model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 @ 1.33GHz address sizes : 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual Intel gives the CPU's specs at... http://ark.intel.com/products/35466/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z520-512K-Cache-1_33-GHz-533-MHz-FSB ...where it specifically says... Intel 64 # No I want to make absolutely certain that "illegal instructions" are not compiled for it. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications