From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul  6 23:52:41 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC0D106564A
	for <arch@FreeBSD.org>; Tue,  6 Jul 2010 23:52:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D46C8FC23
	for <arch@FreeBSD.org>; Tue,  6 Jul 2010 23:52:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o66Nn47r022797
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:49:05 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:49:19 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20100706.174919.29649800801850.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: arch@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Subject: ObsoleteFiles and TARGET_ARCH
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:52:41 -0000

I'm wondering...

Why do we use TARGET_ARCH so much inside of ObsoleteFiles?  It seems
like it should be used only when we obsolete files on some
architectures, but retain them on others.  Instead, it seems to be
used to obsolete files that normally exist on a specific
architecture.  This seems backwards.

Also, we need to change this, but I don't (yet) define a
TARGET_CPUARCH.

Also, why is this TARGET_ARCH and not MACHINE_ARCH?  That suggests
we're invoking it wrong if this is "needed" for the cross build case
to "work".

Comments?

Warner

P.S. I'll be happy to provide a patch here...