Hello Greg,
To build i386 binaries on my 64-bit system with multilib, I just do something like this: mkdir build-i386 cd build-i386 CFLAGS="-m32" CXXFLAGS="-m32" LDFLAGS="-melf_i386" cmake ../src/ And to build x86-64 binaries on my 64-bit system, I don't need to specify anything since it is the default behavior. Xavier On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Gregory Peele ARA/CFD <gpe...@ara.com> wrote: > From: Alexander Neundorf [mailto:a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net] > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:48 AM > To: cmake@cmake.org > Cc: Gregory Peele ARA/CFD > Subject: Re: [CMake] Recommended Multilib Build Approach? > > On Thursday 21 June 2012, Gregory Peele ARA/CFD wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I want to be able to build 32-bit and 64-bit from the same GCC multilib >>> install (currently for MinGW-w64, though this also applies for Linux/Mac >>> GCC and LLVM). To clarify, I want to be able to do two completely >>> separate builds in separate binary dirs - building fat binaries from >>> multiple architectures in the same binary dir is a separate problem I'm >>> also interested in for Android, but I'm not worrying about that yet. >>> >>> What is the "proper" approach to building the non-default arch in a >>> multilib setup? Obviously using CMake as-is will build the default arch >>> just fine. >> I think there are no recommendations yet. I'm not aware that somebody else >> already tried to do this. >> Can the executables built for the non-default architecture be executed on >> the hopst where you are building ? >> If so, there should be a way :-) >> If not, this sounds like somewhat like crosscompiling. >> Alex > > I haven't explored the topic any further since posting. On a multilib > system, all multilib architectures are "native" to the host and can be > executed. Basically the problem I wanted to solve was getting the x86-64 GCC > or LLVM compiler to produce 32-bit x86 code in an easy and non-intrusive way. > > Right now I'm forcibly adding the "-m32" flags to all relevant CMake > variables within my top-level CMake script if CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR is set > to x86 or i686, and conversely the "-m64" flags if set to x86-64 or AMD64. > It seems like there should be a less intrusive way of doing it, and I'm not > sure if this skews some early compiler/platform tests prior to me overriding > the flags. Visual Studio doesn't have this issue since the 32-bit and 64-bit > builds are entirely separate CMake generators - a strange decision, in my > opinion, but easy enough to work with. > > Greg > -- > > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
