| 1 |
On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/12/21 02:13, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:39:33AM +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > I'm planning to take ARCH=loongarch for the port; and support the LP64 ABI |
| 6 |
> > > first. I'd like to support both LP64 and ILP32 ABIs, but that's not a |
| 7 |
> > > priority. |
| 8 |
> > > The ABI flag might be named "ABI_LOONGARCH" but that's IMO a bit long (pun |
| 9 |
> > > semi-intended); ARCH=loong and ABI_LOONG might be better, I'm open to |
| 10 |
> > > suggestions. |
| 11 |
> > FWIW, I like loong and ABI_LOONG better, or even better would be to use the |
| 12 |
> > string `uname -m` returns for the hardware as ARCH and as the suffix for |
| 13 |
> > ABI_. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Ahh I forgot to mention that... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> $ uname -m |
| 18 |
> loongarch64 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And the triple is "loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"; kernel port sits at |
| 21 |
> arch/loongarch; almost everything except Go uses the "loongarch" |
| 22 |
> version. Go people didn't like duplicating "arch" for their GOARCH |
| 23 |
> value, so it's "GOARCH=loong64" there, otherwise the Loongson people |
| 24 |
> pushing their agenda would have used "loongarch64" too. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally |
| 27 |
> long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's |
| 28 |
> perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but |
| 29 |
> "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. |
| 33 |
We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives