FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification
Ian Lepore
ian at freebsd.org
Wed Feb 11 17:56:09 UTC 2015
On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 12:41 -0500, 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 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?
That sounds good to me, but we're going to use it consistantly
everywhere an arch name is needed, right? Like "make
TARGET_ARCH=aarch64 ..." and so on?
-- Ian
More information about the freebsd-arm
mailing list