From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 7 15:52:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F2610656BB for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:52:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AFD8FC12 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ot0TW-0005Ho-LA for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:52:46 +0200 Received: from k.saper.info ([91.121.151.35]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:52:46 +0200 Received: from saper by k.saper.info with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:52:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Marcin Cieslak Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Organization: http://saper.info Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <4C770BB9.2070900@delphij.net> <201008270934.56323.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: k.saper.info User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:13:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MACHINE_ARCH for boot loader X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:52:51 -0000 Dnia 27.08.2010 John Baldwin napisaƂ/a: > On Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:50:01 pm Xin LI wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The attached patch changes FreeBSD/x86 back to FreeBSD/i386 on i386 and >> FreeBSD/amd64 on amd64. >> >> Comments welcome! I'll commit it in by the weekend if there is no >> objection on this. > > As others have noted, the 'x86' is on purpose, and I would rather it continue > to do that rather than this change. Not sure about it, the loader and boot block are 32-bit code, aren't they? (That actually made me to hack some patches to make ficl 64-bit, but that's another story). So I think i386 is better designation for pure 32-bit code I think. -- << Marcin Cieslak // saper@saper.info >>