Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:26:45 -0700 From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: arch-specific directories Message-ID: <AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is as much as request for information as a suggestion. I am wondering of the current layout of sys/<arch> make sense given that in several cases the only difference between two "arch" is the bitness, e.g. powerpc and powerpc64. The 64-bit version supports a few new instructions, but in many cases is the same. The same issue exists with i386/amd64 but because both have been supported for a long time the have full arch separation. However, there has been some movement of files that are common between i386 and amd64 into a common x86 directory. So what I'm wondering is it it makes more sense to have files broken up more like: sys/<arch> for common file between bitness sys/<arch>/32 sys/<arch>/64 for files that are specific to the bitness This would presumably serve at least powerpc and i386/amd64 well, and though I don't know for sure I assume at the moment that it works for sun/sparc as well. So... is this reasonable? Or does the existence of ia64 throw a monkey wrench into this layout? Is it not worth the shuffle (though I'd argue that, if we're moving some files to x86 and creating a new powerpc64 that it's better to consider now than later). I realize there was a discussion earlier along similar lines (the bi-yearly architecture source tree layout discussion) but I don't think it was specifically considering the 32/64 bit differences, which seem to be more common now. Thanks, matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K>