> On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:35 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/4/4 8:22:50 -0700, a...@redhat.com: >> On 04/04/17 16:12, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >>> The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms >>> for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of >>> two different ports. >>> >>> A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run >>> equally well on either port. Which name should we use in JMOD files, >>> "arm64" or "aarch64"? My sense is that "arm64" is more immediately >>> understood by developers at large even if "aarch64" is more correct >>> in the eyes of ARM Holdings plc, but I could be wrong. >> >> I think that you are wrong. >> >>> For what it's worth, the Linux distros aren't consistent: Debian-based >>> distros use "arm64", while Red Hat / Fedora seem to prefer "aarch64". >> >> The name of the processor architecture is "AArch64". The name of the >> Linux kernel architecture is "arm64"; the name of all of userspace is >> "aarch64", on all distros. The kernel is out of step here, for no >> better reason than Linus Torvalds didn't like "aarch64". > > Thanks for the background -- I wasn't aware of that. > > Given that "os.arch" is "aarch64" for both ports, as Bob points out, > then we should use "aarch64" in JMOD files as well. > > This does raise another question, though: Should we use "aarch32" > instead of "arm32" for the 32-bit ARM architecture?
32 bit ARM is a bit more challenging since OS vendors sometime encode the architecture version (armv5, armv6, armv7) and endianess into the uname -p output. aarch32 has special meaning (it’s the arch for running 32-bit arm instructions on an armv8 processor.) and I haven’t seen any use of arm32. I suggest we stick with arm. Bob. > > - Mark
