On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 02:28:22PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:02 PM, enh <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:22 AM, enh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It's necessary to distinguish x86 and x86-64 to be able to recognize the > >>> way x32 is encoded in ELF. > >> > >> Hmmm. That's not fun. > >> > >> I note that I spent the morning teaching the code to read/display the > >> dynamic linker name, so this patch won't "git am" directly. > >> > >> Reading the patch, we're pretending that arrch64 has nothing to do > >> with arm? No mention of arm in this architecture? Ok... (I guess > >> Cortex-M isn't arm either, but don't currently have an example binary > >> of that to test.) > > > > well, you're the one who removed my original "ARM aarch64" which is > > what the regular desktop file(1) says :-P > > But not what the linux-kernel developers ever seem to say in their > patch submissions.
Regardless of what you think about these naming choices, IMO there's little value in a file(1) that does not print the names that scripts using it expect to see. The choice to use aarch64 instead of arm64 is in some ways also a consequence of this, or rather an intentional _mismatch_ with patterns that should not match. The fact that mips64 and powerpc64 match mips* and powerpc* was historically very problematic. Rich _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
