Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:44:53 -0800 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <54DCF4A5.2020305@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <EC5AAE72-F553-4F31-8768-9854B6EE2C69@bsdimp.com> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com> <71E9C1B9-F819-420B-90A5-A36D58E71817@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2ATn5xgsvePCdvzqnyBS45izVHdL8yLaQQoKeJenSv9tg@mail.gmail.com> <228428CC-4042-4902-90A4-E7040F4BFFF5@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2BKzhiA4tbi-mXd6T114_zawmWTi3XbyXiUcgijQfHdyw@mail.gmail.com> <54DCE9B5.8040203@freebsd.org> <EC5AAE72-F553-4F31-8768-9854B6EE2C69@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/12/15 10:37, Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Feb 12, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Nathan Whitehorn >> <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On 02/12/15 09:15, Ed Maste wrote: >>>>> Oh - I don't care what directory Linux puts the kernel source >>>>> in, only what's reported by uname. As far as I can tell that >>>>> has always been aarch64 for uname -m. >>>> >>>> Traditionally in Linux, they have been a matched set. >>> >>> Ok, it appears they may have abandoned this. >>> >>>>> We might decide that "uname -m" has to be aarch64 to match >>>>> expectations of third-party software set by other operating >>>>> systems. If that in turn means we have to move the kernel >>>>> source, so be it. >>>> >>>> This one I’m not on board with. You’ve not made a compelling >>>> case for it yet. >>> >>> That's why I said "we might decide" -- I'm not sure myself. >>> >>> However, there's no backwards compatibility concern here, we've >>> never had a FreeBSD release that reports "arm64" for "uname -m". >>> There's no reason for us to prefer "arm64" if everyone else uses >>> "aarch64." Also, having arm64 for uname -m and aarch64 for uname >>> -p seems a bit odd. >> >> I would assume uname -m would be "arm", not "arm64". Unless there >> are fundamental platform differences you are baking in somehow, >> which I don't know. > > arm would be a pleasing outcome, but looking at his WIP tree, it > looks like it would be possible, but rather inconvenient to merge the > arm64 bits back under arm and make them conditional. > > Warner > > That's unfortunate. Among other things, it precludes easy use of cc -m32. So what is the long-term plan here? Is the new ARM port a new, legacy-free, version that should grow separate 32-bit support for new armv7 systems and then we abandon sys/arm to the ARMv5 stuff? Or are 32-bit and 64-bit ARM just going to live separate lives forever? -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DCF4A5.2020305>