[CMake] Recommended Multilib Build Approach?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Monday 30 July 2012, Gregory Peele ARA/CFD wrote:
> From: Alexander Neundorf [mailto:a.neundorf-work at gmx.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:48 AM
> To: cmake at cmake.org
> Cc: Gregory Peele ARA/CFD
> Subject: Re: [CMake] Recommended Multilib Build Approach?
> 
> On Thursday 21 June 2012, Gregory Peele ARA/CFD wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> 
> >> I want to be able to build 32-bit and 64-bit from the same GCC multilib
> >> install (currently for MinGW-w64, though this also applies for Linux/Mac
> >> GCC and LLVM). To clarify, I want to be able to do two completely
> >> separate builds in separate binary dirs - building fat binaries from
> >> multiple architectures in the same binary dir is a separate problem I'm
> >> also interested in for Android, but I'm not worrying about that yet.
> >> 
> >> What is the "proper" approach to building the non-default arch in a
> >> multilib setup? Obviously using CMake as-is will build the default arch
> >> just fine.
> > 
> > I think there are no recommendations yet. I'm not aware that somebody
> > else already tried to do this. Can the executables built for the
> > non-default architecture be executed on the hopst where you are building
> > ? If so, there should be a way :-)
> > If not, this sounds like somewhat like crosscompiling.
> > Alex
> 
> I haven't explored the topic any further since posting.  On a multilib
> system, all multilib architectures are "native" to the host and can be
> executed.  

Ah, ok.
So the idea is not that I have e.g. /usr/lib/i386/ and /usr/lib/x86-64 and 
also /usr/lib/armv7/ and /usr/lib/mips/, which have different libs but share 
the headers and all other architecture independent files ?

Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20120730/c09c3d7d/attachment.htm>