1 |
On 15-05-2008 11:58:50 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> While 'ia64-hpux' is a multilib platform, and the compilers (HP-cc, gcc) |
5 |
> support this, their default output still is 32bit. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> This is the reason why currently the 'ia64-hpux' keyword in prefix |
8 |
> stands for 32bit, but IMO this is just wrong. |
9 |
|
10 |
Feels really wrong indeed. They just do like any other UNIX does, but |
11 |
on a 64-bits chip. |
12 |
|
13 |
> What I could think of is something like this: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> 1) For "CHOST=ia64-hp-hpux*", patch toolchain (or set CFLAGS/LDFLAGS) to |
16 |
> default to 64bit, and use keyword 'ia64-hpux'. |
17 |
|
18 |
We have similar patches for Solaris on x64, so I don't think this is a |
19 |
big issue to do. |
20 |
|
21 |
> 2a) Define a new "CHOST=ia64_32-hp-hpux*", patch toolchain to understand |
22 |
> this (like for x64-solaris iirc?), and use keyword 'ia64_32-hpux'. |
23 |
|
24 |
Quite ugly, but I guess sort of necessary. |
25 |
|
26 |
> 2b) Or should this better be named "CHOST=ia32-hp-hpux*" and keyword |
27 |
> 'ia32-hpux' ? |
28 |
|
29 |
Question is whether ia32 technically is what you get with this 32-bits |
30 |
emulation on ia64. (I thought ia32 was just regular x86 stuff, but I |
31 |
can be wrong here. The ia64-architecture isn't compatible with i386 IMO.) |
32 |
|
33 |
> How would this be confusing with the fact that 'ia32' is equal to 'x86' |
34 |
> from Intel's POV (they use 'x64' for 'x86' + EM64T extension IIRC). |
35 |
|
36 |
Ah, I should "read ahead". |
37 |
|
38 |
Yeah. x64 is kind of loaded with negative feelings from the other |
39 |
Gentoo folks, basically because Microsoft uses it. However, I still |
40 |
like it that we chose to use it, as it's more generic than amd64 is. |
41 |
(Convert amd64-linux to x64-linux as well?) |
42 |
|
43 |
How necessary is the 32-bits environment for hpux? I think ia64_32 |
44 |
comes closest to something we've seen before (x86_64), so we better use |
45 |
that then in the CHOST. Makes a bit of a problem what we're going to |
46 |
use in our keywords. I think ia32 is a techical unforgivable |
47 |
suggestion, i32 could do for me, though not really a beauty. Maybe we |
48 |
really have no choice but to keep the keyword the same (the arch |
49 |
technically IS ia64, right?) as we're dealing with an emulation mode, |
50 |
and only have the profile to switch to the right CHOST (and hence get |
51 |
the right compiler)? Not sure what the packages broken/wordsize ratio |
52 |
is for HPUX in this case. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
Fabian Groffen |
57 |
Gentoo on a different level |
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |