Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:58:36 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <wlosh@bsdimp.com> Cc: arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: armv6 tree vs. buildkernel Message-ID: <C75EE66B-30CE-48C7-8CC2-5DEC9F9D7F24@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <31C8D224-72D4-4BE8-8EC3-29B078C7DAC3@bsdimp.com> References: <3F1A5B5F-0787-41CE-8C77-8B1F9A601172@freebsd.org> <31C8D224-72D4-4BE8-8EC3-29B078C7DAC3@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> P.S. How is CPUTYPE/TARGET_CPUTYPE supposed to be inferred for = regular "buildworld"? >> The only option I can find is to set it explicitly in /etc/src.conf >=20 > It can't possibly work very well. We need to get TARGET_ARCH=3Darmv6 = working instead of continuing these kludges. Help get me oriented and I'll start grinding through this. What values of TARGET_ARCH should be supported? Right now, there are ARCH values of arm and armeb. Should there be armv6eb? armv7? I'm also unclear on the distinction between make's MACHINE_ARCH and uname -p; are these supposed to be the same? If so, shouldn't make be using a sysctl instead of a hard-coded value? Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C75EE66B-30CE-48C7-8CC2-5DEC9F9D7F24>