Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:19:15 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jmallett@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r208737 - in head: contrib/binutils/bfd contrib/binutils/gas/config contrib/binutils/include/elf contrib/binutils/include/opcode contrib/binutils/opcodes contrib/gcc/config contrib/gcc/... Message-ID: <20100602.151915.496568814199104007.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilVZ07G6giuvVZOoV_-JLSThYg0fPVGsEumlfC9@mail.gmail.com> References: <201006021106.o52B63PZ035362@svn.freebsd.org> <201006020842.49509.jhb@freebsd.org> <AANLkTilVZ07G6giuvVZOoV_-JLSThYg0fPVGsEumlfC9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <AANLkTilVZ07G6giuvVZOoV_-JLSThYg0fPVGsEumlfC9@mail.gmail.c=
om>
Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 05:42, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
: > On Wednesday 02 June 2010 7:06:03 am Juli Mallett wrote:
: >> =A0 o) Fix our GCC spec to define __mips64 for 64-bit targets, not=
__mips64__, the
: >> =A0 =A0 =A0former being what libgcc, etc., check and the latter se=
emingly being a
: >> =A0 =A0 =A0misspelling of a hand merge from a Linux spec.
: >
: > I wonder if it would be useful to define both? =A0The macros we che=
ck for
: > architecture-specific code for other architectures all have both le=
ading and
: > trailing underscores (e.g. __i386__, __amd64__, etc.). =A0Being abl=
e to use
: > __mips64__ instead of __mips64 for that in kernel sources, etc. wou=
ld be
: > more consistent.
: =
: __mips64 is a mistake and adding __mips64__ and using it would be a
: bigger one, I think, since it's kind of confusing and not actually
: useful enough to use consistently. MIPS64 is the name of a particula=
r
: ISA, but not all 64-bit ISAs (indeed, the earliest 64-bit ISA is
: MIPS-III) are derived from it. __mips64 implies a 64-bit ABI, but
: there isn't a clean split between non-__mips64 ABIs and __mips64 ABIs=
: such that those are the only two things you'd ever need to check for.=
: We intend to support the n32 ABI in userland, which has 64-bit
: registers. Conditionals related to that kind of thing would become
: (__mips64__ || __mips_n32). I think it makes more sense to be
: consistent and use macros related to specific ABIs, macros related to=
: specific ISAs and sometimes the macros related to the length of long
: and the size of a pointer, since there are some ABIs that we might
: support (o64) which can support strange combinations of those.
What Juli said and __mips64 is neither an architecture nor a machine.
All the other examples you gave are architectures.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100602.151915.496568814199104007.imp>