[Ecls-list] observations

Paul Bowyer pbowyer at olynet.com
Mon Dec 19 18:36:16 UTC 2011

On 12/18/2011 08:24 PM, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:08:59 -0500
> Matthew Mondor<mm_lists at pulsar-zone.net>  wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:22:34 -0800
>> Paul Bowyer<pbowyer at olynet.com>  wrote:
>>> Hello again Juanjo:
>>> Now that I have both 32-bit and 64-bit PCLinuxOS systems with ECL
>>> installed on them I tried running a executable created on the 32-bit
>>> system on the 64-bit system and discovered that libecl.so.11.1.1, which
>>> the executable is linked against, is different on the two systems.
>>> I was thinking that 32-bit executables would run on a 64-bit system, but
>>> not the other way around. Can I expect that to be true if I ship
>>> libecl.so.11.1.1 created on a 32-bit system to 64-bit systems?
>>> What is the best practice to keep from overwriting an existing 64-bit
>>> version of libecl.so.11.1.1?
>>> Maybe I'm asking a silly question...
>> A different configure --prefix, along with --enable-rpath should help
>> such that every executable loads its proper library, i.e. there then
>> can be multiple versions/builds of ECL, i.e. stored
>> as /usr/local/ecl-<suffix>/*
>> If your use your system's libgmp, libgc and libdffi, this could still
>> be problematic, but ECL also supports building its own statically, i.e.
>> using --enable-boehm=included --with-gmp=included --with-dffi=included,
>> so every build can use its own ABI-compatible version.
> Oh, I forgot to mention about setting CC and CFLAGS/LDFLAGS to the
> wanted values prior to running the configure script, such that you
> build ECL with the wanted compiler and ABI-specific flags...
> Hopefully this helps a bit,
Hi Mathew:

Would you please elaborate a little on the settings for CC and 
CFLAGS/LDFLAGS by providing some examples specific to 32-bit versus 
64-bit platforms? My experience is very limited in this area.



More information about the ecl-devel mailing list