| 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 |
Archives