Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix] ia64-hpux keyword and 32bit/64bit
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 20:06:51
Message-Id: 1210882006.21433.62.camel@salomon-22
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix] ia64-hpux keyword and 32bit/64bit by Fabian Groffen
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 12:32 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 15-05-2008 11:58:50 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > While 'ia64-hpux' is a multilib platform, and the compilers (HP-cc, gcc) > > support this, their default output still is 32bit. > > > > This is the reason why currently the 'ia64-hpux' keyword in prefix > > stands for 32bit, but IMO this is just wrong. > > Feels really wrong indeed. They just do like any other UNIX does, but > on a 64-bits chip.
Hmm, can't understand the "but" here: don't we have this problem for any multilib-capable Unix too (you hacked sth. for Solaris already) ? Fex config.guess does not know "powerpc64-ibm-aix*" on a 64bit AIX-kernel, it's still "powerpc-ibm-aix*". The only platform I know where config.guess' output depends on both the kernel-bits and compiler-bits (${CC_FOR_BUILD:-${HOST_CC:-${CC}}}) is HP-UX on PA/RISC: hppa1*-hp-hpux*: 32bit CPU hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20: 64bit CPU, but HP-UX 10.20 is 32bit only. hppa2.0n-hp-hpux11.*: 64bit CPU, 32bit (narrow) kernel. hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.*: 64bit CPU, 64bit (wide) kernel, 32bit $CC output. hppa64-hp-hpux11.*: 64bit CPU, 64bit kernel, 64bit $CC output.
> > > What I could think of is something like this: > > > > 1) For "CHOST=ia64-hp-hpux*", patch toolchain (or set CFLAGS/LDFLAGS) to > > default to 64bit, and use keyword 'ia64-hpux'. > > We have similar patches for Solaris on x64, so I don't think this is a > big issue to do. > > > 2a) Define a new "CHOST=ia64_32-hp-hpux*", patch toolchain to understand > > this (like for x64-solaris iirc?), and use keyword 'ia64_32-hpux'. > > Quite ugly, but I guess sort of necessary. > > > 2b) Or should this better be named "CHOST=ia32-hp-hpux*" and keyword > > 'ia32-hpux' ? > > Question is whether ia32 technically is what you get with this 32-bits > emulation on ia64. (I thought ia32 was just regular x86 stuff, but I > can be wrong here. The ia64-architecture isn't compatible with i386 IMO.) > > > How would this be confusing with the fact that 'ia32' is equal to 'x86' > > from Intel's POV (they use 'x64' for 'x86' + EM64T extension IIRC). > > Ah, I should "read ahead". > > Yeah. x64 is kind of loaded with negative feelings from the other > Gentoo folks, basically because Microsoft uses it. However, I still > like it that we chose to use it, as it's more generic than amd64 is. > (Convert amd64-linux to x64-linux as well?)
x86w-{solaris,linux} ? ("wide", see below)
> How necessary is the 32-bits environment for hpux?
Well, our application is still not 64bit aware at all, so we need 32bit even on ia64-hpux, x86_64-linux, x86_64-solaris, ppc64-aix and cannot support ia64-linux ATM.
> I think ia64_32 comes closest to something we've seen before (x86_64), > so we better use that then in the CHOST.
The x86_64 affinity was my idea behind ia64_32 indeed. But do we really need a separate CHOST ? Why cannot we use CFLAGS=-m[64|32] to switch the bitwidth, eventually built into gcc-wrapper with some intelligence ? Hmm, might be too confusing if "ia64-hp-hpux11.23-gcc" produces different bitwidths in different prefixes on same machine without seeing any additional argument.
> Makes a bit of a problem what we're going to use in our keywords.
Simply because of the '_' you also didn't choose 'x86_64-solaris' ?
> I think ia32 is a techical unforgivable suggestion, i32 could do for me, though not really a beauty.
Hmm, 'i32' is too short IMO. More ideas for both the 64bit- and 32bit-keyword: ia64-hpux and ia64n-hpux ("narrow", borrowed from hppa2.0n-hp-hpux11*) ia64-hpux and it32-hpux ("ia64" and "Itanium 32bit") it64-hpux and it32-hpux (both from "Itanium") ia64-hpux and ia6432-hpux (huh, too many bits) Looking at this, my favorite is 'ia64-hpux' and 'ia64n-hpux'...
> Maybe we really have no choice but to keep the keyword the same (the arch > technically IS ia64, right?) as we're dealing with an emulation mode, > and only have the profile to switch to the right CHOST (and hence get > the right compiler)?
Then I'd more appreciate to have two keywords with same CHOST and appropriate CFLAGS than the other way round.
> Not sure what the packages broken/wordsize ratio is for HPUX in this case.
For our application it's simply too high ;) /haubi/ -- Michael Haubenwallner Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix] ia64-hpux keyword and 32bit/64bit Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>