Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:18:30 +0100 From: spellberg_robert <emailrob@emailrob.com> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, fbsd_questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [fbsd_questions] i386 vs amd64, on intel_64 Message-ID: <4CAA52B6.1020707@emailrob.com> References: <4CAA3030.3090001@emailrob.com> <AANLkTintm_XubwCCRNJci99Y4M6nwbFr=oiKqBw2%2Ba9M@mail.gmail.com> <4CAA3CFE.1060609@emailrob.com> <AANLkTi=e8cBqd6Z=zxOxpMZm_RD=-RODupzprK843=qF@mail.gmail.com> <20101004225757.GK40148@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
aha ! this relates to what i found in <machine/types.h>, on my existing i386 version of freebsd on my intel_64 hardware platform. i will look into the "questions" archive. meanwhile, back at the ranch, does this mean that i need the "amd64" version of freebsd to get the right headers ? Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Oct 04), David Brodbeck said: > >>On a 64-bit system, if you build a binary with the -m32 flag, it >>should run on both i386 and x86-64 systems. A binary built with -m64 >>will only run on x86-64. Does that help? > > > Actually, -m32 on amd64 won't generate usable binaries, since > /usr/include/machine/* are all amd64 headers and you end up with things like > struct FILE with wrong-size elements. There was a thread a few weeks ago > discussing this. If you need to generate 32-bit executables, you'll need to > do it inside an all-32-bit chroot or a virtual machine. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CAA52B6.1020707>