On 2016-10-05 at 15:10 Dan Cross <[email protected]> wrote: > In some places, our build system wants the ARCH variable to be set to > 'x86' and in others 'x86_64'. I'm guessing that this is historical? > I'd like to standardize on one vs the other; does anyone object to > 'x86_64'?
in part, it was due to what linux went through where x86 could be either 32 or 64 bits, and whether or not it's the same arch, but with different options, or two architectures. we opted to go with kern/arch/x86/, and keep them as different bit-size options within the same arch. we did the same for riscv, which can be 32 or 64 too. as far as Kbuild goes, the bit size is actually selected as a separate option from the build arch, though the default (and the only thing that builds nowadays for x86) is 64 bit. for the toolchain, we actually had three (maybe four?) toolchains you could build, riscv, i686 and x86_64. we needed the distinction there for a while, and also that is the name of the installed binaries and whatnot. i don't actually have a problem with the kernel differing from the toolchain with regards to ARCH = x86 and toolchain prefix = x86_64. but to make things easier for people, we could keep things mostly as they are and just alias the two in the places that need it, basically treating 64 bit as the default bit size for x86 (which is already done in a few place). i do not want to change every place in the codebase that says x86 to x86_64. we already went through that once with i686 -> x86 (going from the specific to the more general arch designation). barret -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akaros" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
