Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:27:24 -0800 From: Michael Mitchell <mmitchel@gmail.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <CAKtsCdfznVebMoaO3OiW5bQ1HVxk4NTTb9tgfnPjq=XxbJa%2B=g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54DB9D93.6070702@freebsd.org> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <54DB9D93.6070702@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
why swim upstream on a naming convention that is established? when you say arm64 how many people are going to read that as amd64? other than cosmetic, is there a technical rationale for picking a different naming convention other than what the industry uses? On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 02/11/15 09:41, Ed Maste wrote: > >> The FreeBSD/arm64 work in progress currently reports "arm64" for the >> machine and processor type - i.e., uname -m and uname -p. >> > > It would probably also be good if we had MACHINE = arm here. > -Nathan > > > It seems that the official, awkward name aarch64 is broadly used >> elsewhere - for example, in toolchain triples and autoconf tests. To >> save us grief in the future I think it is worth following suit: >> >> diff --git a/sys/arm64/include/param.h b/sys/arm64/include/param.h >> index 5cd0445..525a0e7 100644 >> --- a/sys/arm64/include/param.h >> +++ b/sys/arm64/include/param.h >> @@ -43,10 +43,10 @@ >> #define STACKALIGN(p) ((uint64_t)(p) & ~STACKALIGNBYTES) >> >> #ifndef MACHINE >> -#define MACHINE "arm64" >> +#define MACHINE "aarch64" >> #endif >> #ifndef MACHINE_ARCH >> -#define MACHINE_ARCH "arm64" >> +#define MACHINE_ARCH "aarch64" >> #endif >> >> I'm not proposing that we rename any of the source files. I believe >> this approach is consistent with the Debian project - they call it the >> "arm64" port, but report aarch64 from uname. >> >> I believe it will be much easier for us to carry around any >> special-case s/aarch64/arm64/ in the base system (if necessary) than >> trying to teach third-party software that the FreeBSD 64-bit ARM >> architecture is called arm64 instead of aarch64. >> >> Any objections or concerns? >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKtsCdfznVebMoaO3OiW5bQ1HVxk4NTTb9tgfnPjq=XxbJa%2B=g>