http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60821
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to a.h.jaffe from comment #6) > Thanks for the comprehensive info. It would certainly be nice to get the > driverdriver into the main code-base. indeed, patches always welcome :) > > However, one thing still puzzles me: > > > 5. We do accept -arch on x86: -arch i386 gets mapped => -m32 and -arch > > x86_64 -> -m64. The last one you place on the c/l will be in force (and > > there's NO support for the ppc equivalent at present). > > This doesn't quite make sense given my experience: > > I have a 64-bit Mavericks machine, and compiled using MacPorts with > +universal. All of "-arch i386", "-arch x86_64" and "-arch x86_64 -arch > i386" seem to succeed, but "-arch i386 -arch x86_64" fails. According to the > above, the latter should have the same behaviour as "-arch x86_64" I can repeat this. a) the '-arch' entries are being processed correctly [translated into -m32 -m64] b) in the specific case you point out something is not correct in the translation of this to the "-arch" passed to the assembler. Will look into that - however, FAOD, it won't alter any of the properties above.
