On 1/16/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see why the requirement for a "native compiler" is anything > stronger than "a binary that runs on this machine". > > I "native" compiler is defined as one where host==target. Anything else > is something we call a "cross-compiler".
So any bi- or multi-arch configurations are then by definition both a cross and a regular compiler at the same time? Or how do they fit in your scheme? Note that the difference to say bi-arch x86_64 is that ppc64 defaults to -m32 rather than -m64. Still I can "cross"-compile to 32bit on a x86_64 system using -m32. I never tried to "bootstrap" on x86_64 using --host=i686 --target=i686 to build a 32bit compiler building 32bit but of course being able to run on x86_64. Will this then be a canadian cross in your definition? ;) (i.e. build != host) Richard.
