Date: 29 Jan 2003 17:32:51 +1100 From: Benno Rice <benno@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <1043821970.648.60.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20030129062558.GB1715@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030129013537.GB1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128174259.A10304@FreeBSD.org> <20030129021406.GD1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128182013.A13422@FreeBSD.org> <20030129025124.GG1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128190158.A15778@FreeBSD.org> <20030129044548.GI1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128205737.A22274@FreeBSD.org> <20030129051853.GJ1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <1043819769.648.52.camel@localhost> <20030129062558.GB1715@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-akIf/lErW07PZOl+2QTR
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 17:25, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:56:10PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> > >=20
> > > No, I see MACHINE_ARCH implied by where you run config. This seems
> > > strange and I'm not completely sure it's a good thing, but
> > > MACHINE_ARCH is defined in /sys/${ARCH}/include/param.h and
> > > defining the architecture in the kernel config file only allows
> > > a limited freedom; namely the freedom to have the config file
> > > outside the source tree. It basicly only defines a directory,
> > > nothing else. See also below for pc98.
> > >=20
> > > Thus, MACHINE_ARCH is not specified and "machine" holds the
> > > implementation (ie platform). This is exactly what we have
> > > now, so you don't change the meaning.
> >=20
> > This is just confusing. Having just played with this, if I specify
> > machine i386 while in the sys/powerpc/conf directory, I end up with an
> > unbuildable configuration as it sucks in the i386 Makefile but assumes
> > that it's arch-specific files are in ../../include.
>=20
> Yes. We now have config(8) interpret machine in such a way that
> it works for pc98 and therefore does not work right iwith what we
> like to achieve. That needs to change for it to work.
Agreed.
> > Juli's form is also more explicit, which I find appealing.
>=20
> Agreed. There's an advantage there, but see also my reply to
> Juli about the use of "machine" to mean MACHINE_ARCH and the
> use of "platform" to mean MACHINE. This I don't find appealing.
I can see your point here, but if needed I'd rather see them renamed to
MACHINE (which maps to the current MACHINE_ARCH) and PLATFORM as MACHINE
and MACHINE_ARCH are confusingly similar.
> > Juli's patches don't touch the common case.
>=20
> We have 3 architectures that have multiple machines or platforms
> (mips, powerpc and i386). Setting "platform" for mips and powerpc
> and not i386 means that you're setting it for the common case,
> because you could have "nonstandardlocation" defined for only pc98.
> Again, this is just looking at it from a different point of view,
> but a point of view we all have in a year from now when we moved
> there.
True. This is fixable though.
> > platform then you don't get that extra logic. Easy. I agree that
> > moving pc98 over to whatever system we want to use is a good idea, but
> > for the moment I'd be happy with not forcing mips and powerpc down the
> > same road as pc98 which I see as being overly painful and confusing.
>=20
> Agreed. We should not do the same, but instead of saying that we
> do mips and powerpc different, I think we should say that mips and
> powerpc do it the normal way and pc98 does it differently. I like
> to use an extra keyword for the weird case (pc98) and not the normal
> (common) case. See also above, this is looking at it from a point
> of view we'll going to have in the future, not a point of view
> we all have now.
Ok, so are you saying here that Juli's patch is ok but we need to look
at how we deal with pc98?
Or are you saying that you would prefer to change how the machine
directive works in config(8) and introduce a new "non-standard"
directive for pc98?
If the former, I agree totally. If the latter, I'm not so sure. I'd
rather see the directive be "platform" as that is a much more accurate
name for it IMO. If this means we kill off the machine directive, then
that may be how it works.
--=20
Benno Rice <benno@FreeBSD.org>
--=-akIf/lErW07PZOl+2QTR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQA+N3WSXjRwWofFmQkRAum/AJ9ewpnR6yKCVDQj3fHAKRFd3iBVWQCdEQ0G
4uGb8CgNT/JHERmnRNlYXLI=
=b/+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-akIf/lErW07PZOl+2QTR--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1043821970.648.60.camel>