[Bug 53539] maybe a --with-wine-64 build should call widl with -win32 option

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53539

--- Comment #5 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> ---
I think the intent is that any unrecognized targets shouldn't receive any extra
flags (which may not even be valid). We don't know whether an arbitrary target
is a 32-bit or 64-bit. This is compounded by the fact that WoW64 is only really
supported for ARM and x86 targets, and doesn't exactly make sense for anything
else.

If you're doing a wow64 build in the first place, we arguably know that the
32-bit side should have -m32, but I don't think cases like this have ever come
up, and it's not really clear to me what the "correct" thing to do is.

(In reply to j-r from comment #4)
> Looking at the TARGETFLAGS section of configure.ac, it's not clear to me
> 
>  - why x86_32 build hosts are handled differently form x86_64 at all. Are
> there supported toolchains for the wine32 build that don't support -m32/-m64?

Not at the moment, but I think there have been in the past.

>  - why cross building enters into the consideration for x86_64 build hosts.
> At least on Debian stable it seems that passing -m32 to the default X86_64
> gcc is not enough to build a 32 bit executable (because it cannot find a
> suitable libgcc) and installing i686-linux-gnu-gcc is the easiest way out;
> while just passing CC=i686-linux-gnu-gcc to configure is enough for the
> build to succeed, technically it's a cross build and using
> --host=i686-linux-gnu doesn't seem less correct and shouldn't be blocked

"$host" is the user-specified host and not (necessarily) the build machine, so
unless I'm misreading that, the point there is that if someone passes
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu but not --enable-win64, we want to respect the --host
argument and do a 64-bit build. (But if they don't pass any options, we want to
build a 32-bit tree, because that is categorically more useful than a 64-bit
tree for Windows programs.)

>  - why the ms_va_list test build is done without -m64.

It probably wasn't *intentionally* done without -m64, but rather there's no
need; -m64 is effectively the default on x86_64 platforms.

-- 
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.