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