pooka@ wrote:
> > > additionally, userland is built with MKSOFTFLOAT=yes,
:
> > In that case, shouldn't we have different ${MACHINE_ARCH}
> > for different binaries?
>
> i think you're right. hmm, looking at the build cluster output there
> seem to be very few sets shared between mips archs (i don't know the
> details of how they are selected).
base and comp can't be shared due to <machine/disklabel.h> etc.
On the other, packages binaries are seriously affected.
> Do you have a naming suggestion? mipsebsf?
hpcmips chose and implemented painful fpemul to avoid such discussion,
IIRC :-)
It looks eb/el should be suffix, but probably we should check
other OSes and misc configure scripts etc.
> should the mips64 archs be
> renamed to follow the same convention?
Only if we will also have non-softfloat mips64?
(as sh3 has only softfloat currently)
---
Izumi Tsutsui
