# x86_64 is missing [Solved]

## grooveman

I'm bumping into this now and then lately... and now it is affecting my primary PC.

I'm configuring my kernel using make menuconfig.  I set my architecture to Opteron/Amd64/Hammer/k8. Everything seems to be normal.

Then, I execute make && make modules_install.  Everything seems to compile just fine, but when I go to find my kernel to copy it to /boot/, there is no ~/arch/x86_64 directory, least of all a bzImage.

I have done a make clean, make mrproper and tried again, same thing.  I have removed the entire kernel tree, re-emerged gentoo-sources, and the same thing happens.  I have tried issuing a make && make modules && make modules_install and the old-style make dep && make clean && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install.  Every time, there is no ~/arch/x86_64.  I have tried temporarily setting my arch to pentium, then back to amd64 -- but no good.

What is going on here?

Thanks

G

----------

## KillerHonky

My kernel almost always compiles into the arch/x86 directory instead of the x86_64 directory, look there. Don't worry, it doesn't mean it has changed the architecture. I've been told it is perfectly normal by another poster. If it isn't there, that is quite odd.

Here's my old thread just in case you need reassurance:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-885262-start-0.html

----------

## gerard27

```
ikke@localhost ~ $ ls /usr/src/linux/arch/x86_64/boot

bzImage

ikke@localhost ~ $ 
```

It's a symlink to /usr/src/linux/arch/x86/boot/bzImage.

Why it's done this way I don't know.

Gerard.

----------

## Aquous

 *gerard82 wrote:*   

> Why it's done this way I don't know.

 Because from the kernel point of view, x86 and x86_64 are both 16-bit, because that's the state your processor is in when GRUB hands off control of your system to the kernel. The kernel starts in 16-bit, then does some administrative work, and then switches your processor into 32-bit mode. After that, it can switch to 64-bit mode, too: just like 32-bit is just an extension of 16-bit, so too is 64-bit an extension of 32-bit. But the kernel starts in 16-bit, on both architectures, so from the low-level kernel interfaces' point of view x86 and x86_64 are both the same arch: 16-bit  :Razz: 

----------

## grooveman

Interesting...

Well, I looked, and there was no bzImage to be found anywhere... but I did find something...

Aparently, there was an error that occurred early on, so that it was beyond my scroll buffer.  I tried a make bzImage, and that revealed an error with building the radeon firmware drivers.  It looks like there was a similar issue here.

I did look though, and it does not look like x86_64 is a symlink.  

```
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root 4096 Nov  2 16:51 x86_64
```

  So, I'm not sure what how that stacks with what you guys were saying...

But, I appreciate the help.

Thanks!

G

----------

## EatMeerkats

 *grooveman wrote:*   

> Interesting...
> 
> Well, I looked, and there was no bzImage to be found anywhere... but I did find something...
> 
> Aparently, there was an error that occurred early on, so that it was beyond my scroll buffer.  I tried a make bzImage, and that revealed an error with building the radeon firmware drivers.  It looks like there was a similar issue here.
> ...

 

```
/usr/src/linux % ls -l arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage 

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Oct 31 12:58 arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage -> ../../x86/boot/bzImage
```

----------

## grooveman

 *Quote:*   

> 
> 
> ```
> /usr/src/linux % ls -l arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage 
> 
> ...

 

I see, the actual bzImage is a symlink.  But the x86_64 dir is not.

----------

