| 1 |
Mike, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:52PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> originally i was going to reuse ARCH=arm for aarch64 (and that's what the code |
| 5 |
> in the tree is doing now). however, after playing with things and debating it |
| 6 |
> in my head, i think we should create a new ARCH=aarch64. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> reasons: |
| 9 |
> - aarch64 is not a simple extension over arm at the ISA level like x86_64 is |
| 10 |
> over i686. it's a new ISA. |
| 11 |
> - hand written assembly language cannot be shared at all -- with x86_64, you |
| 12 |
> could sometimes write code that the assembler would automatically turn into |
| 13 |
> the right output (64bit/x32/32bit). |
| 14 |
> - the aarch64 gcc port itself does not support arm -- you need a complete |
| 15 |
> second toolchain |
| 16 |
> - the way the hardware is being designed, it is possible to have a CPU that |
| 17 |
> only supports aarch64 (no arm at all) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Agreed. What platform (if any) are you developing/testing on? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
thx, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Jason. |
Archives