Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:57:32 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <54DC40CC.2090103@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/11/15 19:46, Ed Maste wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ It usually uses uname -p. For example, on powerpc64: $ uname -m powerpc $ uname -p powerpc64 $ ./configure checking build system type... powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0 checking host system type... powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0 Most software does the right thing here, with the exception of a few rare custom build systems I've run into. -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DC40CC.2090103>