Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:15:16 -0500 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <CAPyFy2BKzhiA4tbi-mXd6T114_zawmWTi3XbyXiUcgijQfHdyw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <228428CC-4042-4902-90A4-E7040F4BFFF5@bsdimp.com> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com> <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com> <71E9C1B9-F819-420B-90A5-A36D58E71817@bsdimp.com> <CAPyFy2ATn5xgsvePCdvzqnyBS45izVHdL8yLaQQoKeJenSv9tg@mail.gmail.com> <228428CC-4042-4902-90A4-E7040F4BFFF5@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Oh - I don't care what directory Linux puts the kernel source in, only >> what's reported by uname. As far as I can tell that has always been >> aarch64 for uname -m. > > Traditionally in Linux, they have been a matched set. Ok, it appears they may have abandoned this. >> We might decide that "uname -m" has to be aarch64 to match >> expectations of third-party software set by other operating systems. >> If that in turn means we have to move the kernel source, so be it. > > This one I=E2=80=99m not on board with. You=E2=80=99ve not made a compell= ing case for > it yet. That's why I said "we might decide" -- I'm not sure myself. However, there's no backwards compatibility concern here, we've never had a FreeBSD release that reports "arm64" for "uname -m". There's no reason for us to prefer "arm64" if everyone else uses "aarch64." Also, having arm64 for uname -m and aarch64 for uname -p seems a bit odd. > One other area that these choices impact the system is in the MACHINE_CPU= ARCH > macro, which is derived from MACHINE_ARCH (-p), so it might need another > special case. There's a special case already for TARGET_TRIPLE :C/arm64/aarch64/. > There=E2=80=99s also a number of places we test different of these variab= les > against arm*<mumble> that will need to be audited if we make this change = as well. > Thankfully, there=E2=80=99s only about a dozen. While not externally visi= ble, any change here > will need to make sure we=E2=80=99re consistent when building. Yes, I'm not too worried about the naming within our tree - dealing with a few dozen tests in the FreeBSD tree is much easier than trying to change expectations of third-party software.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2BKzhiA4tbi-mXd6T114_zawmWTi3XbyXiUcgijQfHdyw>