| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere. |
| 7 |
> > > instead, reusing "amd64". only downside is the existing USE=amd64 |
| 8 |
> > > behavior, but we can address that by making MULTILIB_ABIS a |
| 9 |
> > > USE_EXPAND (i think this came up before with the portage multilib |
| 10 |
> > > discussion). |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Hrm, wouldn't that be more like x86 keyword? AFAICS the type sizes |
| 13 |
> > for x86 and x32 would match. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> the sizeof(long) and sizeof(void*) are the same between x86 and x32. |
| 16 |
> however, that's about the only thing. for example, x32 gets access |
| 17 |
> to 64bit registers when working with 64bit types (long long) and the |
| 18 |
> tuple is x86_64-pc-linux- gnu. in general, it seems to be closer to |
| 19 |
> amd64 than x32. -mike |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm rather thinking about potential issues. But OTOH packages fixed for |
| 22 |
amd64 should probably work with x32 as well. Excluding asm code which |
| 23 |
would probably need a third variant then. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives