From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 11 19:31:17 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1592E185; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5ED7E68; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iecar1 with SMTP id ar1so6593974iec.0; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=31U1SpGysQPtmAs3sM/ocMt+7Oc7tvvANpGbeEqJpuI=; b=akkkfpiOQNC+RYstIztFbBHhgb1qHVRjsSgJXcbE+XZSReEhYUmjXHyUmzPyaH9kvo S4GE2k2QdTxCsFT0SXu9NXD5LuKOcUHmaFbkMIUOKAZ+/jssFkGjkhfUgIX+a55cFJvd z4PtFGbDiHVIQ5OHAwW7d4KvKwnzvB6W/PRQ5J76c3ic2OXRWUILKVfCcMLvequ0qvxx v31Aquu91ShE/P+z0HTe282Pjce1BmTIW2LLQAGDBvO0R7c/V1gAM0+9WAeudd/LxxM3 qxVIs617+j+BHOtlxtzpr0yazYfwUrVbcPScZzvOgvn15MmdPDIWp8tjzYcT2wWZYueV t6fQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.198 with SMTP id y6mr32148913igl.16.1423683075685; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.28.148 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54DB9D93.6070702@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:15 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification From: Michael Mitchell To: Nathan Whitehorn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:31:17 -0000 sent it too early... the changes are good to match the industry standard. i find it a PIA when people invent new terms 'cuz they can' and 'just to be different' :) now, as an side note, ARM does use the term aarch32 as a roughly the synonym for armv7 instruction set, its just not as widely established... any takers? :) On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Michael Mitchell wrote: > why swim upstream on a naming convention that is established? > > when you say arm64 how many people are going to read that as amd64? > > other than cosmetic, is there a technical rationale for picking a > different naming convention other than what the industry uses? > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Nathan Whitehorn > wrote: > >> >> On 02/11/15 09:41, Ed Maste wrote: >> >>> The FreeBSD/arm64 work in progress currently reports "arm64" for the >>> machine and processor type - i.e., uname -m and uname -p. >>> >> >> It would probably also be good if we had MACHINE = arm here. >> -Nathan >> >> >> It seems that the official, awkward name aarch64 is broadly used >>> elsewhere - for example, in toolchain triples and autoconf tests. To >>> save us grief in the future I think it is worth following suit: >>> >>> diff --git a/sys/arm64/include/param.h b/sys/arm64/include/param.h >>> index 5cd0445..525a0e7 100644 >>> --- a/sys/arm64/include/param.h >>> +++ b/sys/arm64/include/param.h >>> @@ -43,10 +43,10 @@ >>> #define STACKALIGN(p) ((uint64_t)(p) & ~STACKALIGNBYTES) >>> >>> #ifndef MACHINE >>> -#define MACHINE "arm64" >>> +#define MACHINE "aarch64" >>> #endif >>> #ifndef MACHINE_ARCH >>> -#define MACHINE_ARCH "arm64" >>> +#define MACHINE_ARCH "aarch64" >>> #endif >>> >>> I'm not proposing that we rename any of the source files. I believe >>> this approach is consistent with the Debian project - they call it the >>> "arm64" port, but report aarch64 from uname. >>> >>> I believe it will be much easier for us to carry around any >>> special-case s/aarch64/arm64/ in the base system (if necessary) than >>> trying to teach third-party software that the FreeBSD 64-bit ARM >>> architecture is called arm64 instead of aarch64. >>> >>> Any objections or concerns? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > >