User Tools

Site Tools


codebase:remove_m32

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

codebase:remove_m32 [2018/08/23 00:29]
vodur created
codebase:remove_m32 [2018/08/23 00:30]
vodur
Line 1: Line 1:
-Sender ​ Vodur~\\ +<code text> 
-Date  Fri Jun 16 00:49:37 2017~\\ +Sender ​ Vodur~ 
-Stamp  1497588608\\ +Date    Fri Jun 16 00:49:37 2017~ 
-Expire ​ 1507956584\\ +Stamp   ​1497588608 
-To  imm~\\ +Expire ​ 1507956584 
-Subject removing -m32 flag~\\ +To      imm~ 
-Text\\ +Subject removing -m32 flag~ 
-I propose to remove -m32 flag from makefile.\\ +Text 
-What we gain from this is mostly future pain of setting up 32-bit build\\ +I propose to remove -m32 flag from makefile. 
-dependencies on 64-bit systems (as we've all done by now).\\ +What we gain from this is mostly future pain of setting up 32-bit build 
-Potential issues, as far as I understand, would be if we have code that assumes\\+dependencies on 64-bit systems (as we've all done by now). 
 +Potential issues, as far as I understand, would be if we have code that assumes
 size of types. Here are the sizes with and without -m32. size of types. Here are the sizes with and without -m32.
  
--m32     no -m32\\ +                      ​-m32     no -m32 
-The size of int  4       4\\ +The size of int         ​4       4 
-The size of short  2       2\\ +The size of short       ​2       2 
-The size of long  4       8\\ +The size of long        4       8 
-The size of float  4       4\\ +The size of float       ​4       4 
-The size of double ​ 8       8\\ +The size of double ​     8       8 
-The size of long double 12  16\\ +The size of long double 12      16 
-The size of char  1       1\\ +The size of char        1       1 
-The size of enum  4       4\\ +The size of enum        4       4 
-The size of pointer ​ 4       8\\ +The size of pointer ​    ​4       8 
-So only long, long double, and pointer sizes have changed. This being the case\\+So only long, long double, and pointer sizes have changed. This being the case
 I say the risk of issues from size change is low. I say the risk of issues from size change is low.
  
-I verified code can compile and run just fine without -m32. Only issue I see at\\ +I verified code can compile and run just fine without -m32. Only issue I see at 
-the moment is there is casting between void * and int in hunt.c which gets a\\+the moment is there is casting between void * and int in hunt.c which gets a
 warning since they are different sizes with no -m32. warning since they are different sizes with no -m32.
  
 Thoughts? Thoughts?
  
-P.S.: On a related note, we are currently using gcc 6.2.1 on the host right now\\ +P.S.: On a related note, we are currently using gcc 6.2.1 on the host right now 
-(through scl devtoolset-6),​ which for some reason can't link libstdc++ 32-bit,\\ +(through scl devtoolset-6),​ which for some reason can't link libstdc++ 32-bit, 
-so if/when we do start adding C++ code, we would need to turn -m32 off or go\\ +so if/when we do start adding C++ code, we would need to turn -m32 off or go 
-back to gcc 4.1.2.\\+back to gcc 4.1.2.
 ~ ~
 +</​code>​
  
codebase/remove_m32.txt · Last modified: 2018/08/23 00:30 by vodur