FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification

[Nathan Whitehorn]

On 02/12/15 09:15, Ed Maste wrote:
>>> 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’m not on board with. You’ve not made a compelling 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.

I would assume uname -m would be "arm", not "arm64". Unless there are 
fundamental platform differences you are baking in somehow, which I 
don't know.
-Nathan