On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere.
> > > instead, reusing "amd64".  only downside is the existing USE=amd64
> > > behavior, but we can address that by making MULTILIB_ABIS a
> > > USE_EXPAND (i think this came up before with the portage multilib
> > > discussion).
> > 
> > Hrm, wouldn't that be more like x86 keyword? AFAICS the type sizes
> > for x86 and x32 would match.
> 
> the sizeof(long) and sizeof(void*) are the same between x86 and x32.
> however, that's about the only thing.  for example, x32 gets access
> to 64bit registers when working with 64bit types (long long) and the
> tuple is x86_64-pc-linux- gnu.  in general, it seems to be closer to
> amd64 than x32. -mike

I'm rather thinking about potential issues. But OTOH packages fixed for
amd64 should probably work with x32 as well. Excluding asm code which
would probably need a third variant then.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny