FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification

Nathan Whitehorn nwhitehorn at freebsd.org
Wed Feb 11 19:56:05 UTC 2015


I think you have misunderstood my point. Where there is substantial 
overlap between architectures (e.g. 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit 
and 64-bit MIPS, big- and little-endian versions of architectures), we 
usually set MACHINE and MACHINE_CPUARCH to something common (e.g. "arm", 
"powerpc", "mips") and MACHINE_ARCH to the 
32-/64-/big-endian/little-endian variant name. So in this case, MACHINE 
would be "arm" and MACHINE_ARCH "aarch64", just as we now have 
arm/armv6, arm/armeb, etc.
-Nathan

On 02/11/15 11:27, Michael Mitchell wrote:
> why swim upstream on a naming convention that is established?
>
> when you say arm64 how many people are going to read that as amd64?
>
> other than cosmetic, is there a technical rationale for picking a
> different naming convention other than what the industry uses?
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
> <nwhitehorn at freebsd.org <mailto:nwhitehorn at freebsd.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 02/11/15 09:41, 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 would probably also be good if we had MACHINE = arm here.
>     -Nathan
>
>
>         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?
>         _________________________________________________
>         freebsd-arm at freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-arm at freebsd.org> mailing
>         list
>         http://lists.freebsd.org/__mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm
>         <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>
>         To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>         "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at __freebsd.org
>         <mailto:freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>"
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     freebsd-arm at freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-arm at freebsd.org> mailing list
>     http://lists.freebsd.org/__mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm
>     <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>
>     To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>     "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at __freebsd.org
>     <mailto:freebsd-arm-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>"
>
>



More information about the freebsd-arm mailing list