From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-163145-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D66138CC5
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:19:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D042E07F0;
	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:19:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE07E076D
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:19:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: floppym)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F1ED340A52
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:19:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iedm5 with SMTP id m5so47422399ied.3
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.107.130.197 with SMTP id m66mr2021602ioi.19.1427149147023;
 Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.128.168 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150324015104.GA32732@waltdnes.org>
References: <20150319015612.GA7416@waltdnes.org> <2482967.XKl8GgfQej@navi>
 <CAJ0EP40ROYC8FarXymDOyoZsFzT8P4HqWec-zSNFB6tA5q00-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1570093.qMVvttJaZ4@navi> <20150324015104.GA32732@waltdnes.org>
From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:18:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ0EP43qFSgO5ZDG1Oc-_7eGUgN_egp3Pp1j=j74E5b0h-wCYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile
 32-bit code?
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: b791c640-3eb6-4483-bd47-1cd9e311e819
X-Archives-Hash: a43860cebf35f0b8da408bbd0b0fcc8a

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> 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.

You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit
objects on the 64-bit machine.