1 |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel |
5 |
>> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the |
6 |
>> models I mentioned) but the chance of error is there. The -mno-xxx |
7 |
>> flags would safeguard against it. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I have one of the earliest Atom chips. Some people have a hard time |
10 |
> believing this, but it's a 32-bit-only chip; a couple of lines from |
11 |
> /proc/cpuinfo |
12 |
> |
13 |
> model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 @ 1.33GHz |
14 |
> address sizes : 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Intel gives the CPU's specs at... |
17 |
> |
18 |
> http://ark.intel.com/products/35466/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z520-512K-Cache-1_33-GHz-533-MHz-FSB |
19 |
> |
20 |
> ...where it specifically says... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Intel 64 # No |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I want to make absolutely certain that "illegal instructions" are not |
25 |
> compiled for it. |
26 |
|
27 |
You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit |
28 |
objects on the 64-bit machine. |