On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:00:58 -0400, Oscar del Rio wrote:

> Dave Uhring wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0400, Oscar del Rio wrote:
>>
>>> What's the correct way to build gcc so that 32-bit libs are
>>> searched in /opt/local/lib and 64-bit libs in /opt/local/lib/64?
>> Specify Sun's ld?
>> The gcc shipped with b_90 has this:
>> --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --without-gnu-ld
> I checked that, with "gcc -v test.c". It is using Sun ld.
Interlesting. Im glad someone else has done this.
I actually have to WORK the next 2 days : >
> ld: Software Generation Utilities - Solaris Link Editors: 5.11-1.1598
> The build would use gnu ld only if you specify --with-gnu-ld
> and the gnu path.
> I should RTFM about compiling 64-bit libraries.

I sort of cheat in that I provide a list of directories to look
in my LD_RUN_PATH [32 bit and 64 bit altogether]. For gcc multi-lib.
For others I specify the sparcv9 dir when its not in /usr/lib. Suns ld
accepts this and behaves. I never use gnu tools like gld or gas unless
there is no other way to get something done.
Most configures allow the install target dir to be specified to some
degree of granularity. The studio compilers do a lot all by themselves.
Only gcc has to be beaten into submission : > Its a rather special case
though..

I ran a make check on the 64 bit version of mpfr and got almost
100% failure. So I was rather sceptical that openssl 64 bit
would pass the make test but it did! Penguins blow it again : >