Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 23:22:46 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: New Arch: armv7 Message-ID: <CANCZdfpckYgO93se06qV2Z%2Bw0h1gCKXi4t5BTcOtShLOL%2BEVbw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As discussed here in June, we're creating a new arch. I've landed on the armv7 name (as opposed to earmv7hf or armv7l) for the following reasons: 1. armv7 isn't a huge amount of work to implement in our tree, while the other two names require substantially more complicated .if statements in makefiles. 2. Neither of the other names actually buy us a large amount in the ports. Autoconf is split and many other ports do different things to get the system they are running on and wouldn't benefit from the other names. There's a small number of ports that might be better, but not enough to justify the extra work in base. 3. It's more like the names we've been using, and won't cause confusion with our user base. And it will be easy enough for outsiders to see what we support from it without needing the decoder ring for NetBSD, or dealing with 'what's the trailing l mean, why doesn't armv6 have it, or arm and what about armeb' all the time. btw, if we ever do a big endian port, armv7eb will be the name, per project tradition. So, I'll be finalizing FCP-0100 with this data (I've sent the pull request) and will get an implementation together (I have the start of one I was able to knock out in about an hour, after spending twice that on the other two choices w/o reaching completion) and if there's issues that arise as we move forward, cope with them on the way to asking core to vote to bless this is the consensus of the relevant parts of the community. I hope to have it committed by the end of the month, and hope that the FCP process won't unduly delay things. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpckYgO93se06qV2Z%2Bw0h1gCKXi4t5BTcOtShLOL%2BEVbw>