svn commit: r354900 - head/usr.sbin/jail

[Warner Losh]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:19 PM Dimitry Andric <dim at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 01:44, John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/20/19 3:42 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> On 20 Nov 2019, at 23:32, John Baldwin wrote:
> ...
> >> You can however find more of these elsewhere:
> >>
> >> ../lib/libc/tests/sys/Makefile:.if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} != "aarch64" &&
> >> ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} != "riscv"
> >> ../lib/libcompiler_rt/Makefile.inc:.if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == "aarch64"
> >> || ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == "riscv"
> >> ../stand/libsa/Makefile:.if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == "aarch64" ||
> >> ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == "riscv"
> >> ../usr.bin/Makefile:.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != "aarch64" &&
> >> ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} != "riscv"
> >> ../usr.bin/gprof/Makefile:.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != "aarch64" &&
> >> ${MACHINE_ARCH} != "riscv" && \
> >
> > The tests comparing MACHINE_CPUARCH against aarch64 are confusing indeed.
> > My understanding is that MACHINE_CPUARCH is arm64 for aarch64?  It's kind
> > of hard to guess since arch(7) goes to great length to try to describe
> > these variables but doesn't give a handy table of what they actually are
> > for the various architectures.
>
> Yes, such a table would be extremely helpful. :)
>

Fair point. It does go on at length for all the MACHINE_ARCH types, but
doesn't list the plain MACHINE_CPUARCH. In all cases, it is either the one
MACHINE_ARCH supported, or the common prefix of all the MACHINE_ARCH
supported (though when we delete armv5, that will become slightly
inaccurate, so a table is likely good).

Warner