Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:31:15 -0800 From: Michael Mitchell <mmitchel@gmail.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <CAKtsCdfq-%2BOJwr_3VWWXB=CmJxDb1gRxp8A38q0uTKZcRbp9CQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAKtsCdfznVebMoaO3OiW5bQ1HVxk4NTTb9tgfnPjq=XxbJa%2B=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <54DB9D93.6070702@freebsd.org> <CAKtsCdfznVebMoaO3OiW5bQ1HVxk4NTTb9tgfnPjq=XxbJa%2B=g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <mmitchel@gmail.com> 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 <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org > > 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" >> > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKtsCdfq-%2BOJwr_3VWWXB=CmJxDb1gRxp8A38q0uTKZcRbp9CQ>