Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code?

[Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.developer@outlook.com>]

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-aes -mno-pclmul -
mno-popcnt -mno-abm -mno-lwp -mno-fma -mno-fma4 -mno-xop -mno-bmi -mno-bmi2 -
mno-tbm -mno-avx -mno-avx2 -mno-sse4.2 -mno-sse4.1 -mno-lzcnt -mno-rtm -mno-
hle -mno-rdrnd -mno-f16c -mno-fsgsbase -mno-rdseed -mno-prfchw -mno-adx -mfxsr 
-mno-xsave -mno-xsaveopt --param l1-cache-size=24 --param l1-cache-line-
size=64 --param l2-cache-size=512 -mtune=atom -fstack-protector -mfpmath=sse -
fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables"
> >
> >   Is that correct (assuming that's my output)?
> >
> 
> I should warn you against including all of those -mno-xxx flags. This
> has been known to break the build process for packages like chromium,
> which always wants to build with SSE4 support and toggles it off at
> runtime. Passing -mno-sse4.1 causes a build failure as it tries to use
> macros that are not defined.
> 

Isn't it possible that removing it for all packages would cause a more subtle 
problem with another faulty ebuild (like a program crashing due to an illegal 
instruction)?

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez