On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Micheal Waltz wrote: > > On 09/03/14 14:45, Andrew Deason wrote: > > > It seems like maybe aarch64 should be its own sysname, though, from what > > I've seen here? Since it doesn't define __arm__ when compiling, > > apparently, and it has its own gnu toolchain triplet component. Do you > > (or others) agree? Should it be arm64_linux26, aarch64_linux26, > > armv8a_linux26, or something else? > > I would like to see aarch64/arm64 at least as it's own sysname. From what I've > experienced with using armv6 (raspberrypi) and armv7 (ifc6410), they both have > the arm_linux26 sysname, but binaries can be incompatible. If for whatever > reason we need to use armv6, armv7, and armv8 binaries in the same AFS cell we > would have all sorts of @sys issues. > > This is further confusing since ARM uses aarch64, but Debian/Ubuntu/Linux > Kernel uses arm64. > > My vote is for arm64_linux26 since it's more recognizable, is the same name as > the arch in the Linux kernel, and stays with the AFS convention of having > arm_linux26 for 32-bit and arm64_linux26 for 64-bit.
FreeBSD is also using arm64. As supporting evicence, I note that we still use amd64 and not "Intel 64" or "x86_64". I should note that at MIT, we use things like amd64_ubuntu1404 -- you can set values for the @sys expansion at runtime using "fs sysname". amd64_ubuntu1404 is not necessarily compatible with amd64_deb40. -Ben _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
