On 07.10.2024 10:15, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 9:07 AM Frediano Ziglio > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 8:03 AM Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 05.10.2024 15:21, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 05/10/2024 9:02 am, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile >>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>>>> -obj-bin-y += head.o cbundle.o >>>>> +obj-bin-y += head.o cbundle.o reloc-trampoline.x64.o >>>> >>>> Ah. I think the $(obj)/%.x64.o rule you had in the previous patch wants >>>> introducing here. >>>> >>>> That said, x64 is the one name for 64bit that we reliably don't use. >>>> Also... >>>> >>>>> -head-bin-objs := cmdline.o reloc.o >>>>> +head-bin-objs := cmdline.o reloc.o reloc-trampoline.o >>>> >>>> ... head-bin-objs isn't really correct now seeing as they're not >>>> binaries in head.S. Also ... >>>> >>>>> nocov-y += $(head-bin-objs) >>>>> noubsan-y += $(head-bin-objs) >>>> >>>> The no$(foo)'s needs extending to the 64bit objects too. They're also >>>> used early enough to explode. >>>> >>>> In Xen, 64bit objects are the norm, and it's 32bit ones which are the >>>> exception, so how about we special case *.i386.o instead. Then >>>> >>>> obj32 := cmdline.i386.o >>>> obj32 += reloc.i386.o >>>> obj32 += reloc-trampoline.i386.o >>> >>> I'd like to advocate for ix86 or i686. i386 gives a wrong impression imo. >> >> Why not simply x86 ? We already use it. >> > > Looking at current files, we also use (to distinguish more clearly 32 > and 64 bit) x86_32.
Either would be fine with me; as to x86 I took it that Andrew wanted to express the 32-bit-ness, which x86 alone doesn't unambiguously do. Jan
