From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 14 15:48:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC071065675 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:48:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mdf356@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gw0-f54.google.com (mail-gw0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B578FC1B for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so3216101gwj.13 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:48:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=sX1cXoXgkaunD3q+ZDz37WVpJhW3MhIshQX7sHNK06U=; b=TaT3fCPcSzxsobLfJVBFUxenVB2EqRx0JIQ1dL1O+jBO6Vg3sJ/v5op9AwUUDF4Two ddGMFT2UA6Uh+DNYVkDE5h+BoHFjr+blFzJsGLQbdUYL8A8ZK6RQhb6oSSbc9slSSwWc MTGfr4HQMOJ210f5RySwBhjN14dtfR+2hg+xU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=mRdcm23JyvdLQMohrDoCnqxRtYsnJAB2V5CLYDC1zx6Vzou8Q3dksKtfJAbBO4auzs VMImf0giIkPeK8s/P3j83HD87jUqMt5YLVLlIMO6+BM6EpZJl9n5gADBoYTCIGU4R0OV 4f+c0gNQWTwx3TpxeOl3HyTTN2VxAF8KUJNV0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.114.155 with SMTP id e27mr2315172qaq.202.1276529205892; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mdf356@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.28.79 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:26:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ThfXEE3OOSMuOysEza5M1zn_16g Message-ID: From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: arch-specific directories X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:48:53 -0000 This is as much as request for information as a suggestion. I am wondering of the current layout of sys/ make sense given that in several cases the only difference between two "arch" is the bitness, e.g. powerpc and powerpc64. The 64-bit version supports a few new instructions, but in many cases is the same. The same issue exists with i386/amd64 but because both have been supported for a long time the have full arch separation. However, there has been some movement of files that are common between i386 and amd64 into a common x86 directory. So what I'm wondering is it it makes more sense to have files broken up more like: sys/ for common file between bitness sys//32 sys//64 for files that are specific to the bitness This would presumably serve at least powerpc and i386/amd64 well, and though I don't know for sure I assume at the moment that it works for sun/sparc as well. So... is this reasonable? Or does the existence of ia64 throw a monkey wrench into this layout? Is it not worth the shuffle (though I'd argue that, if we're moving some files to x86 and creating a new powerpc64 that it's better to consider now than later). I realize there was a discussion earlier along similar lines (the bi-yearly architecture source tree layout discussion) but I don't think it was specifically considering the 32/64 bit differences, which seem to be more common now. Thanks, matthew