arch-specific directories

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K at mail.gmail.com>
            mdf at FreeBSD.org writes:
: This is as much as request for information as a suggestion.
: 
: I am wondering of the current layout of sys/<arch> make sense given
: that in several cases the only difference between two "arch" is the
: bitness, e.g. powerpc and powerpc64.  The 64-bit version supports a
: few new instructions, but in many cases is the same.  The same issue
: exists with i386/amd64 but because both have been supported for a long
: time the have full arch separation.  However, there has been some
: movement of files that are common between i386 and amd64 into a common
: x86 directory.
: 
: So what I'm wondering is it it makes more sense to have files broken
: up more like:
: 
: sys/<arch>      for common file between bitness
: sys/<arch>/32
: sys/<arch>/64  for files that are specific to the bitness

What files would these be for powerpc?  I thought Nathan's stuff was
common.  i know that on MIPS they are common...

: This would presumably serve at least powerpc and i386/amd64 well, and
: though I don't know for sure I assume at the moment that it works for
: sun/sparc as well.
:
: So... is this reasonable?  Or does the existence of ia64 throw a
: monkey wrench into this layout?  Is it not worth the shuffle (though
: I'd argue that, if we're moving some files to x86 and creating a new
: powerpc64 that it's better to consider now than later).

we're not creating a new sys/powerpc64, I don't think.  That's why
nathan's work depends on my tbemd tree.

ia64 doesn't matter in this discussion.  It is a different
architecture entirely.

Warner