Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:06:52 -0800 From: Devin Butterfield <dbutter@wireless.net> To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: name for sys/ Message-ID: <3A5145CC.5EEE71CE@wireless.net> References: <20010101174554.A29489@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > > Mike Smith suggested `arm32', but upon reading > http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm32/ : > > There is really no such thing as `an arm32.' The first ARM processors > (ARM2 and ARM3) were designed by Acorn, and had both 26 bit > constraints and poor MMUs. These processors are supported by > NetBSD/arm26. Acorn later spun off ARM with Apple and VLSI. ARM's > CPUs (6, 7, 8, 9 and StrongARM) were fully 32-bit and are supported > by NetBSD/arm32. > > I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should > carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. GNU autoconf refers to > it simply as `arm', but I kinda like `strongarm' since that make it > perfectly clear what CPUs we are supporting. > > Opinions? I would agree with David that `strongarm' would be the better choice since there is no question regarding what's supported. It's always smart to make things self-documenting. -- Regards, Devin. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A5145CC.5EEE71CE>