HEADS UP: COMPAT_IA32 renamed COMPAT_FREEBSD32
yanefbsd at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 04:24:58 UTC 2010
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM, M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> In message: <7d6fde3d1003111720g7dccf93w1f51db88758a5c4d at mail.gmail.com>
> Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> writes:
> : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Scot Hetzel <swhetzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Mike Jakubik
> : > <mike.jakubik at intertainservices.com> wrote:
> : >> On 3/11/2010 9:50 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>> As a result of importing 32-bit compatibility support for non-x86 64-bit
> : >>> platforms, the kernel options COMPAT_IA32 has been renamed COMPAT_FREEBSD32
> : >>> in revision 205014, so all kernel configurations including this option must
> : >>> be modified accordingly.
> : >>>
> : >>
> : >> That sounds a bit confusing, compatibility with FreeBSD 3.2?
> : >>
> : > I agree that the name COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is confusing, does it mean
> : > compatiblity with FreeBSD 3.2, FreeBSD 32 or 32-bit ARCH's.
> : >
> : > A better name would have been COMPAT_ARCH32 or COMPAT_32BIT_ARCH.
> : Agreed. Is it possible to change the name again because it really
> : hasn't gotten much traction yet?
> What does the name matter, really?
> This will be documented, and mirrors the kernel source
> Put another way: if everybody that's going to comment on the name
> would instead fix one bug from the PR database with the time they
> spend commenting on it, would FreeBSD be better or worse off than
> spending dozens of hours arguing over COMPAT_X32 vs COMPAT_Y32 vs
I can haz PR review then? Here's an easy one :)...
More information about the freebsd-current