Hi,
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > I switch between other cross-compiled arches (alpha, usually) on the
> > > makefile command line
> > >
> > > Yes, I know other 32/64-bit arches require .config editing. That
> > > doesn't change the basic fact that this is a workflow regression.
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I switch between other cross-compiled arches (alpha, usually) on the
makefile command line
Yes, I know other 32/64-bit arches require .config editing. That
doesn't change the basic fact that this is a workflow regression.
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
> replaced by ARCH=x86.
[...]
> x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
>
> The fist kill the symlinks to bzImage.
> Now that we changed everything else to x86 there is no reason to
> keep the
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
replaced by ARCH=x86.
[...]
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
The fist kill the symlinks to bzImage.
Now that we changed everything else to x86 there is no reason to
keep the
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> In fact, we should be able to get rid of ARCH entirely; CONFIG_ options
>> have the huge advantage that they're saved in a file, and you don't have to
>> type them on every make run. The
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
In fact, we should be able to get rid of ARCH entirely; CONFIG_ options
have the huge advantage that they're saved in a file, and you don't have to
type them on every make run. The only
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> In fact, we should be able to get rid of ARCH entirely; CONFIG_ options
> have the huge advantage that they're saved in a file, and you don't have to
> type them on every make run. The only option that I can't see us getting
>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> HOWEVER, I think the right thing for allyesconfig, allmodconfig,
> randconfig, etc. is to be able to override specific variables. Right
> now, one has to use indirection via a file, which is a bit clumsy; it
> would be better
Paul Mundt wrote:
Indeed, that's what I was intending on keeping around as a convention,
and simply overloading SRCARCH for the sh64 case. i386/x86_64 potentially
has the same issue though, and if the intent is to have a single ARCH for
both of them, I don't see how that would possibly work
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:08:12AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
> replaced by ARCH=x86.
> The rationale behind the patchset are that with a
> unified x86 architecture this should be reflected in
> the build commands.
>
> With this patch
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
In an not opposed to keep ARCH={i386,x86_64} but then we should
establish clear semantics.
What does it imply when I build a kernel with ARCH=i386?
- 32 bit, build kernel, uname -m
as a us
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:23:32AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
>> this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
>
> They _are_ different in the real world... that's why
>
> make
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> >This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
> >unification, as we have no option but having completely different
> >toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:21:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:21:52PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > If you do that, then things like randconfigs will randomly break if you
> > happen to use a toolchain targetted specifically at i386 or so.
> >...
>
> If you want to know
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:21:52PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:54:44AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> > > >and
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> >This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
> >unification, as we have no option but having completely different
> >toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
>
Paul Mundt wrote:
This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
unification, as we have no option but having completely different
toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
using a 32-bit ABI.
IMO it seems like you ought to be able to do
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
They _are_ different in the real world... that's why
make ARCH=i386
is so often used.
Do we need a way to say "build a kernel that
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:54:44AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> > >and introduce ARCH=x86.
> > >It touches several files but the changes are all
On Saturday 10 November 2007 18:54, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> > >and introduce ARCH=x86.
> > >It touches several files but the changes are all one or
On Saturday 10 November 2007 18:54, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:54:44AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
They _are_ different in the real world... that's why
make ARCH=i386
is so often used.
Do we need a way to say build a kernel that
Paul Mundt wrote:
This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
unification, as we have no option but having completely different
toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
using a 32-bit ABI.
IMO it seems like you ought to be able to do
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Paul Mundt wrote:
This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
unification, as we have no option but having completely different
toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
using a
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:21:52PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 08:54:44AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:21:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:21:52PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
If you do that, then things like randconfigs will randomly break if you
happen to use a toolchain targetted specifically at i386 or so.
...
If you want to know how to
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Paul Mundt wrote:
This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
unification, as we have no option but having completely different
toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
using a
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:23:32AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Keeping ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64 around is just a way to pretend
this is two diffrent architectures which is no longer the case.
They _are_ different in the real world... that's why
make ARCH=i386
is
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable make ARCH=x86
In an not opposed to keep ARCH={i386,x86_64} but then we should
establish clear semantics.
What does it imply when I build a kernel with ARCH=i386?
- 32 bit, build kernel, uname -m
as a user I think
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:08:12AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
replaced by ARCH=x86.
The rationale behind the patchset are that with a
unified x86 architecture this should be reflected in
the build commands.
With this patch set the
Paul Mundt wrote:
Indeed, that's what I was intending on keeping around as a convention,
and simply overloading SRCARCH for the sh64 case. i386/x86_64 potentially
has the same issue though, and if the intent is to have a single ARCH for
both of them, I don't see how that would possibly work
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
HOWEVER, I think the right thing for allyesconfig, allmodconfig,
randconfig, etc. is to be able to override specific variables. Right
now, one has to use indirection via a file, which is a bit clumsy; it
would be better if
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:35:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
In fact, we should be able to get rid of ARCH entirely; CONFIG_ options
have the huge advantage that they're saved in a file, and you don't have to
type them on every make run. The only option that I can't see us getting
rid
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> >and introduce ARCH=x86.
> >It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
> >
> > x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
x86_64/boot
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
>> and introduce ARCH=x86.
>> It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
>>
>> x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
>> x86_64/boot
>>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
>> and introduce ARCH=x86.
>> It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
>>
>> x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:23:23 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
> > and introduce ARCH=x86.
> > It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
> >
> > x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and x86_64/boot
kbuild: sanity check the specified arch
With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
replaced by ARCH=x86.
The rationale behind the patchset are that with a
unified x86 architecture this should be reflected in
the build commands.
With this patch set the 32/64 bit selection is done
at configuration time like we know it from
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and x86_64/boot
kbuild: sanity check the specified arch
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:23:23 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
x86_64/boot
kbuild: sanity
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and
x86_64/boot
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:23:23PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
This is the patch that get rid of ARCH=i386 and ARCH=x86_64
and introduce ARCH=x86.
It touches several files but the changes are all one or two-liners.
x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to
With this patchset the former ARCH=i386 / ARCH=x86_64 are
replaced by ARCH=x86.
The rationale behind the patchset are that with a
unified x86 architecture this should be reflected in
the build commands.
With this patch set the 32/64 bit selection is done
at configuration time like we know it from
48 matches
Mail list logo
