On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:32PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:24:23PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > So the issue isn't as cut and dried as you might think. There's > multiple different conventions used here in addition to your simple > example.
I guess we'd have to take a poll to find out. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. COMPAT_FREEBSDn has an established context that does not match this new usage. That is - same bit'ness, compatibility with an older FreeBSD API for the same architecture. All the other COMPAT_* are for foreign ABI compatibility. COMPAT_LINUX32 possibly should have been "COMPAT_LINUX_X86_64". (or is it MI and is usable as-is for PowerPC and MIPS? I haven't looked that deeply at the code.) > Users of 64-bit systems that will be using COMPAT_FREEBSD32 > are likely to find this a natural extension of the COMPAT_LINUX32 that > they are likely already using. You know I am such a user - and I don't think it is so clear given the existence (and purpose) of "COMPAT_FREEBSDn" for the past many years. While it does match the directory name of 'sys/compat/freebsd32', it may be that "freebsd32" was a poor choice for that directory's name. But given the recent discussion in another thread - I won't even suggest we rename it. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
