Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:34:13 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Michael Mitchell <mmitchel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <54DBAEB5.6030007@freebsd.org> 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
I think you have misunderstood my point. Where there is substantial overlap between architectures (e.g. 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit and 64-bit MIPS, big- and little-endian versions of architectures), we usually set MACHINE and MACHINE_CPUARCH to something common (e.g. "arm", "powerpc", "mips") and MACHINE_ARCH to the 32-/64-/big-endian/little-endian variant name. So in this case, MACHINE would be "arm" and MACHINE_ARCH "aarch64", just as we now have arm/armv6, arm/armeb, etc. -Nathan On 02/11/15 11:27, Michael Mitchell 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> mailing > list > http://lists.freebsd.org/__mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>; > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@__freebsd.org > <mailto:freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>" > > > _________________________________________________ > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/__mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>; > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@__freebsd.org > <mailto:freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DBAEB5.6030007>