From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 14:40:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 31EC937B405; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34F837B404 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail12.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FCA43F93 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:40:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 2398 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2003 21:40:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Apr 2003 21:40:54 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h39LehOv050538; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:40:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030409181005.A975B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Peter Wemm cc: Perforce Change Reviews cc: David O'Brien cc: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 28461 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 21:40:49 -0000 On 09-Apr-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:04:01AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 10:23:56AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> > > >> > > On 07-Apr-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: >> > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=28461 >> > > > >> > > > Change 28461 by peter@peter_daintree on 2003/04/07 16:35:32 >> > > > >> > > > use -mcmodel=medium for hammer. Otherwise it generates >> > > > 32 bit instructions for things like invltlb(). kernel model >> > > > comes later. >> > > >> > > Side topic: are we going to call it amd64 some day instead of x86-64? >> > >> > This gets hairy... if the toolchain calls it one thing and we call it >> > another. AMD marketing is trying to squash the "x86-64" name in favaor >> > of "AMD64". Note that "AMD64" is what M$ has always called it... so one >> > has to wonder... >> >> I agree with the concerns, but x86-64 is a particularly ugly name >> and uncomfortable to use in general that I'm inclined to prefer a >> name change in spite of the drawbacks. Think about all the scripts >> and makefiles containing x86_64... *shiver* > > Could we live with a slightly modified toolchain that defines both > __x86_64__ and __amd64__ ? I'd be more than happy to rename everything > so that it was #ifdef __amd64__ and have MACHINE_ARCH=amd64 for > $dir/amd64/* etc. But we can't stop defining __x86_64__ since thats what > linux and the FSF camp appear to use. Lots of third party stuff will have > __x86_64__ ifdefs. This would work for me. This is similar to how sparc64 defines both __sparc64__ and __sparc_v9__, etc. >> BTW: To what extend is the actual name important? Is it only >> 'uname -m' that really matters (toolchain bordercases aside)? > > Having $MACHINE_ARCH different to #ifdef __$MACHINE_ARCH__ would be an > ongoing problem I think. Yes, we would need to make it consistent across the board as far as FreeBSD sources are concerned. I prefer amd64 personally as x86-64 is indeed an ugly name. :) -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/