Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:46:18 -0500 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11 February 2015 at 19:20, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > Linux used the original aarch64, but later changed to arm64. Are you sure? As far as I can tell Linux reports "aarch64" for uname -m (i.e., hw.machine) and that is what config.guess / autoconf expects. > I suggest > that we follow this carefully. We botched the naming of amd64 and have > dozens of warts in our build system because of it. Indeed. We have to be sure that this is correct before it makes it to HEAD. > I strongly object to the MACHINE change for reasons stated above, but the MACHINE_ARCH > is likely a very good change since it aligns with the expected values for configuring things like > clang, gcc, bintuils, etc. As far as I can tell it's uname -m / sysctl hw.machine that's used by autoconf. Uname -p is hw.machine_arch and doesn't seem to be used.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ>