Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:45:55 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com> To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: name for sys/ Message-ID: <20010101174554.A29489@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith suggested `arm32', but upon reading http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm32/ : There is really no such thing as `an arm32.' The first ARM processors (ARM2 and ARM3) were designed by Acorn, and had both 26 bit constraints and poor MMUs. These processors are supported by NetBSD/arm26. Acorn later spun off ARM with Apple and VLSI. ARM's CPUs (6, 7, 8, 9 and StrongARM) were fully 32-bit and are supported by NetBSD/arm32. I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. GNU autoconf refers to it simply as `arm', but I kinda like `strongarm' since that make it perfectly clear what CPUs we are supporting. Opinions? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010101174554.A29489>