From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 18 20:12:57 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FDE16A4CE; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:12:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from minerva.int.gov.br (nat.int.gov.br [200.20.196.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FFD43D31; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:12:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jonny@jonny.eng.br) Received: from [10.0.8.17] (dinf-02 [10.0.8.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by minerva.int.gov.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7004BE507; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:12:54 -0200 (BRDT) Message-ID: <41ED6DC6.1000604@jonny.eng.br> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:12:54 -0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Astrodog References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050118073612.GA10427@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <2fd864e050118063747f5caa3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2fd864e050118063747f5caa3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org cc: Andreas Klemm Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:12:57 -0000 Astrodog wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:36:13 +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote: > >>On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:46:17PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>Personally, I think /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux (for linux64) would be >>>the best way to go. The idea being that /compat/linux runs native binaries >>>on any given arch, and if there's more than one arch supported, the >>>non-native ones get the funky names. >> >>Am not 100% sure but it might be a win to re-think this for port >>builders/designers. >> >>It might be beneficial not to use such "implicit" rules for naming >>like your suggestion for taking /compat/linux as native arch. >> >>I would perhaps name /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux64 explicitely, >>which might be a win and is IMHO not too expensive. >> >>Uname should IMHO get a new switch to print out default architecture >>of being 32 or 64 bit. >> >>So together with uname and the above naming scheme you have all you need >>and is compareable to what we already have (concerning uname) for >>cpu architecture. >> >>Do perhaps other BSD teams have added an mechanism like that or >>do they get 32/4 bit out of /proc ? >> >>Best regards >> >> Andreas /// > > > Not sure if it got lost, so I'm gonna summarize what I said earlier, > Why not have /compat/linux32, and /compat/linux64 (For things that > require one or the other), then just have /compat/linux linked to the > native setup for the machine? That gives the ease of /compat/linux for > the native stuff, without causing the problems Andreas pointed out. Thats exactly what I was going to write now. Symlink is the solution! > Also allows people with "clean" 64-bit friendly code to just use > /compat/linux on AMD64 or i386, and have things work in whatever way > is native to the machine. > > This could also be extended to other archs, if that ever becomes an > issue. (linuxppc, linuxsparc64, whatever), with linux still pointing > to native. -- João Carlos Mendes Luís