On 5 May 2015 at 11:07, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > this is hopefully the final thread regarding app-tools toolchain naming. > > For those who have not been following, the upstream "Selecting an > architecture tuple for the rumprun toolchain" thread with my original > proposal can be found here: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/139324 > > Summary: > > Both Ian Jackson and myself have proposed an essentially identical naming > scheme. This scheme, while not entirely compliant with upstream's view of > how architecture tuples are *traditionally* used (emphasis mine), fulfills > all the goals in my original proposal and is future-proof. > > Ian summarized the argument for not following the traditional scheme best, > so I'm quoting him here: > >> The problem we are having here is that rumprun doesn't fit in the nice >> tidy scheme of these arch tuples. I think the right thing to do is to >> consider how these tuples are usually used, to try to understand how >> best to express reality within the existing framework. > > Therefore, I'd like to propose that we the following scheme for > naming both the filesystem "arch prefix" and "arch tuple" passed to > configure: > > <cpu>-rumprun{posix,xen,baremetal}-<kernel+userland> > > Where <kernel+userland> is currently "netbsd", i.e. the existing "native" > value is re-used for this field. > > So, the current rumprun app-tools wrappers will be named, for example: > > x86_64-rumprunxen-netbsd-gcc > x86_64-rumprunbaremetal-netbsd-gcc > > The corresponding arch tuples used for configuring autoconf applications > will be: > > x86_64-rumprunxen-netbsd > x86_64-rumprunbaremetal-netbsd > > Examples of hypothetical *future* naming: > > Rumprun on xen, with a Linux rump kernel and glibc: > > x86_64-rumprunxen-linux-gnu > > Rumprun on ARM baremetal, with a Linux rump kernel and musl libc: > > arm-rumprunbaremetal-linux-musl > > etc. > > I'd like to get the renaming done ASAP, so if anyone has objections to > the proposed scheme please speak up now! Final call :-)
What was the reason for having -rumprunxen- etc - surely 99% of applications just want rumprun, and I am not sure that there are not an infinite number of platforms eg rumprunuserspacefreebsd. Didnt Antti suggest using defines for anything that really needs to distinguish? eg there is no such thing as an arm baremetal platform, there is one for pretty much every SoC thats ported to. Justin
