From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 00:37:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36A816A4CE for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F4143D2D for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:37:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE7D1378D; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:37:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:37:36 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: adridg@cs.kun.nl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: AMD64 and lang/gcc3x on -CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:37:36 -0000 On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Adriaan de Groot wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> *** Configuration amd64-portbld-freebsd5.2 not supported >> Configure in /tmp/a/ports/lang/gcc33/work/build/gcc failed, exiting. >> and my gut tells me someone renamed x86_64 to amd64 somewhere without >> making proper adjustment in upstream packages or something like that. > > From things David and/or Peter have written I've gathered the following: > > 1) AMD didn't give the platform an official name till fairly late > 2) Some folks chose amd64 > 3) Later the muttonheads at the FSF chose x86_64 And right they were. See yesterdays press announcement by Intel. Plus, the FSF tools had support for x86_64 before AMD announced their marketing names (AMD64, Opteron, Athlon64,...), as far as I know. >> This is a heads up that I will shortly mark all affected GCC ports BROKEN, >> unless someone steps forward and fixes this (not by hacking the port, but >> by submitting proper patches upstream, if needed). > I think hacking the port is the only way, since there's such a fundamental > disagreement in what the platform is called (this same problem shows up in > lots of software packages, BTW, like OpenAFS). Yes, but these changes should be submitted back upstream to the FSF, at least for the GCC 3.3, 3.4 and mainline branches which are still open for patches, not kept as FreeBSD-local patches. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/