Crosscompiling is not enough, more important will be glibc compatibility. Also in case of possible dynamic linkage to other libraries their versions should be checked to match.
Gcc has flags for all flavours of x86, i386 up.

[QUOTE] -mtune=cpu-type
Tune to cpu-type everything applicable about the generated code,
except for the ABI and the set of available instructions. The
choices for cpu-type are:

generic
Produce code optimized for the most common IA32/AMD64/EM64T
processors. If you know the CPU on which your code will run,
then you should use the corresponding -mtune option instead of
-mtune=generic. But, if you do not know exactly what CPU users
of your application will have, then you should use this option.

As new processors are deployed in the marketplace, the behavior
of this option will change. Therefore, if you upgrade to a
newer version of GCC, the code generated option will change to
reflect the processors that were most common when that version
of GCC was released.

There is no -march=generic option because -march indicates the
instruction set the compiler can use, and there is no generic
instruction set applicable to all processors. In contrast,
-mtune indicates the processor (or, in this case, collection of
processors) for which the code is optimized.

native
This selects the CPU to tune for at compilation time by deter-
mining the processor type of the compiling machine. Using
-mtune=native will produce code optimized for the local machine
under the constraints of the selected instruction set. Using
-march=native will enable all instruction subsets supported by
the local machine (hence the result might not run on different
machines).

i386
Original Intel's i386 CPU.

i486
Intel's i486 CPU. (No scheduling is implemented for this
chip.)[/QUOTE]

I have a notion that you are worrying too much. Just try it and we'll see if something (if anything) won't work.

Isn't a static build possible?

In general ? Sure, just link against static libraries (.a) and not the dynamic ones (.so)

Speaking about Windows, shouldn't [URL="http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex"]KernelEx[/URL] or something similar help you out?

Guys,

Thanks a bunch for all the ideas! I'm going to reveal my utter and nearly complete ignorance here, but would it be right to say that GCC might make it possible to create (compile) a version of FactorX that would work on that old edition of Windows?

Obviously I've got a lot of learning to do...

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;250429]Guys,

Thanks a bunch for all the ideas! I'm going to reveal my utter and nearly complete ignorance here, but would it be right to say that GCC might make it possible to create (compile) a version of FactorX that would work on that old edition of Windows?

Obviously I've got a lot of learning to do...

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile, I probably found an old AMD k6-350 (faster than P233 in integer math) with Linux installed.
If I get it to work, I'll try to compile a generic Factor5 for all Pentium platforms. Keep your fingers crossed... :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;250455]Meanwhile, I probably found an old AMD k6-350 (faster than P233 in integer math) with Linux installed.
If I get it to work, I'll try to compile a generic Factor5 for all Pentium platforms. Keep your fingers crossed... :smile:

Luigi[/QUOTE]
Luigi,

That would be fantastic!! Good luck!

Rodrigo