Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:28:39 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MACHINE_CPU Message-ID: <200004270528.XAA50165@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:04:52 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004211802040.61323-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004211802040.61323-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004211802040.61323-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> Kris Kennaway writes:
: I want to enable support for CPU-specific assembler code in things like
: libgmp, openssl, etc, which requires knowledge of the target CPU type (not
: just the architecture). For example, OpenSSL only includes asm code for
: pentium and above, so we can't just build it if MACHINE_ARCH == "i386".
:
: The obvious way to do this is to add a MACHINE_CPU to sys.mk and add a
: shadow TARGET_CPU in Makefile.inc1. Any objections to this approach?
Don't call it MACHINE_CPU. That's a bad name. In the MIPS world
there are dozens of CPUs that all implement the same ISA. I'd be more
inclined to call it {MACHINE,TARGET}_ISA. After all, it is supposed
to connote a level along a continuum of CPUs that are produced by one
or more vendors.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004270528.XAA50165>