General
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

SOLVED
Go to solution
devshlom
Regular Advisor

gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

Hi,
I'm trying to compile my executable with +DD64 (we are using gcc compiler) but I get the following msg:
"gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory"

what do I miss? how can I compile 64bit app with gcc?

tx,
s
4 REPLIES
James R. Ferguson
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

Hi:

The gcc compiler options are different from those used by the native HP-UX C/aC++ compiler.

Have a look here:

For PA-RISC:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/HPPA-Options.html#HPPA-Options

For Itanium:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/IA_002d64-Options.html#IA_002d64-Options

Regards!

...JRF>>>
devshlom
Regular Advisor

Re: gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

hi JRF,
I work on pa-risk, but even when I tried to specify -mpa-risc-2-0 to the gcc, it seems that it doesn't work.
1. when I'm runing "file " I don't get the 64 or LP64 indication
2. my program prints "sizeof(long)" which should return 8 in case of 64bit application, but it returns 4

what do you suggest?
tx,
s
Steven Schweda
Honored Contributor

Re: gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

> [...] which should return 8 in case of
> 64bit application, [...]

That's one opinion.

> what do you suggest?

Use "long long" if you want "long long"?

Which option did you specify which would make
"long" 64 bits (which would break all kinds
of existing code)?
Dennis Handly
Acclaimed Contributor
Solution

Re: gcc: +DD64: No such file or directory

>I tried to specify -mpa-risc-2-0 to the gcc, it seems that it doesn't work.

This is still 32 bit mode. Just PA2.0 vs PA1.1.

If you want to compile with 64 bit on PA, you need to download HP's gcc compiler, or build your own. (There are two for PA.)
http://www.hp.com/go/gcc

>>"sizeof(long)" which should return 8 in case of 64bit application

Correct, for LP64.

>Steven: That's one opinion.

No, that's a HP-UX fact.

>Which option did you specify which would make "long" 64 bits (which would break all kinds of existing code)?

That's why it is called "porting" to 64 bit.