|
From: Stephane A. <ste...@ca...> - 2012-10-05 01:50:08
|
Hi, I am on redhat 5.8: uname -a Linux torstephane-lx.algorithmics.com 2.6.18-308.el5 #1 SMP Fri Jan 27 17:17:51 EST 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux After running configure, I get the following output Maximum build arch: amd64 Primary build arch: amd64 Secondary build arch: x86 Build OS: linux Primary build target: AMD64_LINUX Secondary build target: X86_LINUX Platform variant: vanilla Primary -DVGPV string: -DVGPV_amd64_linux_vanilla=1 Default supp files: exp-sgcheck.supp xfree-3.supp xfree-4.supp glibc-2.X-drd.supp glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp glibc-2.5.supp which seems surprising, but completely normal as per another post. Then make fails as follows gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I.. -I../include -I../VEX/pub -DVGA_amd64=1 -DVGO_linux=1 -DVGP_amd64_linux=1 -DVGPV_amd64_linux_vanilla=1 -I../coregrind -DVG_LIBDIR="\"/usr/local/lib/valgrind"\" -DVG_PLATFORM="\"amd64-linux\"" -g -Wno-long-long -MT libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.Tpo -c -o libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.o `test -f 'm_cpuid.S' || echo './'`m_cpuid.S m_cpuid.S: Assembler messages: m_cpuid.S:64: Error: bad register name `%rax' m_cpuid.S:118: Error: bad register name `%rbp' m_cpuid.S:119: Error: bad register name `%rsp' m_cpuid.S:120: Error: bad register name `%rbx' m_cpuid.S:122: Error: bad register name `%rcx' m_cpuid.S:124: Error: bad register name `%rdx' m_cpuid.S:132: Error: bad register name `%rsi' m_cpuid.S:134: Error: bad register name `%rsi)' m_cpuid.S:136: Error: bad register name `%rdi' m_cpuid.S:138: Error: bad register name `%rdi)' m_cpuid.S:140: Error: bad register name `%r8' m_cpuid.S:142: Error: bad register name `%r8)' m_cpuid.S:144: Error: bad register name `%r9' m_cpuid.S:146: Error: bad register name `%r9)' m_cpuid.S:148: Error: bad register name `%rbx' m_cpuid.S:149: Error: bad register name `%rbp' m_cpuid.S:150: Error: bad register name `%rbp' Any help appreciated |
|
From: John R. <jr...@bi...> - 2012-10-05 03:47:59
|
On 10/04/2012 06:12 PM, Stephane Aubry wrote: > Hi, I am on redhat 5.8: > > uname -a > Linux torstephane-lx.algorithmics.com 2.6.18-308.el5 #1 SMP Fri Jan 27 17:17:51 > EST 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > After running configure, I get the following output > > Maximum build arch: amd64 > Primary build arch: amd64 > Secondary build arch: x86 > Build OS: linux > Primary build target: AMD64_LINUX > Secondary build target: X86_LINUX > Platform variant: vanilla > Primary -DVGPV string: -DVGPV_amd64_linux_vanilla=1 > Default supp files: exp-sgcheck.supp xfree-3.supp xfree-4.supp > glibc-2.X-drd.supp glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp glibc-2.5.supp > > which seems surprising, but completely normal as per another post. What is surprising about it? Namely, what did you expect, and what is the difference with what you actually get? To me the output looks like a sane 64-bit environment, also with support for 32-bit executables. > > Then make fails as follows > > > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I.. -I../include -I../VEX/pub -DVGA_amd64=1 > -DVGO_linux=1 -DVGP_amd64_linux=1 -DVGPV_amd64_linux_vanilla=1 -I../coregrind > -DVG_LIBDIR="\"/usr/local/lib/valgrind"\" -DVG_PLATFORM="\"amd64-linux\"" -g > -Wno-long-long -MT libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.o -MD -MP -MF > .deps/libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.Tpo -c -o > libcoregrind_amd64_linux_a-m_cpuid.o `test -f 'm_cpuid.S' || echo './'`m_cpuid.S > m_cpuid.S: Assembler messages: > m_cpuid.S:64: Error: bad register name `%rax' Are you sure that "gcc" is "gcc -m64"? What does "$ which gcc" say? What kind of executable does "gcc" produce? Try this: $ gcc -o hello hello.c $ file hello Those error messages (quoted above) look like the output which "gcc -m32" would give, namely compiling for 32-bit i686 despite all the flags for 64-bit (namely "-DVGA_amd64=1" etc.) -- |
|
From: Stephane A. <ste...@ca...> - 2012-10-06 00:48:01
|
John Reiser <jreiser <at> bitwagon.com> writes: > What is surprising about it? Namely, what did you expect, and what > is the difference with what you actually get? > To me the output looks like a sane 64-bit environment, > also with support for 32-bit executables. > I was surprised to see amd as the primary when I have an Intel chip. Someone explained it refers to the arch, not the chip, and thats probably your point too, so no worry. > > Those error messages (quoted above) look like the output > which "gcc -m32" would give, namely compiling for 32-bit i686 > despite all the flags for 64-bit (namely "-DVGA_amd64=1" etc.) And thats why Im an idiot and youre a genius. I changed my compiler and it worked!!!! Thank you so much. |