| 1 |
On Thursday 09 January 2014 12:03:52 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> originally i was going to reuse ARCH=arm for aarch64 (and that's what the |
| 3 |
> code in the tree is doing now). however, after playing with things and |
| 4 |
> debating it in my head, i think we should create a new ARCH=aarch64. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> reasons: |
| 7 |
> - aarch64 is not a simple extension over arm at the ISA level like x86_64 |
| 8 |
> is over i686. it's a new ISA. |
| 9 |
> - hand written assembly language cannot be shared at all -- with x86_64, |
| 10 |
> you could sometimes write code that the assembler would automatically turn |
| 11 |
> into the right output (64bit/x32/32bit). |
| 12 |
> - the aarch64 gcc port itself does not support arm -- you need a complete |
| 13 |
> second toolchain |
| 14 |
> - the way the hardware is being designed, it is possible to have a CPU |
| 15 |
> that only supports aarch64 (no arm at all) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> it does mean we'll have to re-seed ebuilds with KEYWORDS=aarch64, but |
| 18 |
> that's just how it goes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
i ended up renaming to KEYWORDS=arm64: |
| 21 |
- it's the name Debian has picked |
| 22 |
- it's the name the kernel uses |
| 23 |
- the CrOS guys have a preference for that over aarch64 |
| 24 |
- when you sort KEYWORDS, these will end up next to each other |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
since it really doesn't matter to us (it's bikeshedding either way), i just |
| 27 |
went with it |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives