| 1 |
On 8/12/21 14:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally |
| 6 |
>>> long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's |
| 7 |
>>> perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but |
| 8 |
>>> "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. |
| 9 |
>> I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. |
| 10 |
>> We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". |
| 11 |
> Can we please keep these identifiers short? Currently all ARCH names are |
| 12 |
> 5 characters at most (except prefix, of course). The total length of the |
| 13 |
> KEYWORDS line isn't the main issue here, but tools like eshowkw or |
| 14 |
> tables in the various web interfaces. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It is also in GLEP 53 if you need a formal reference: |
| 17 |
> "Note that no limit on the length of both fields in the keyword are |
| 18 |
> imposed. However, we cannot overemphasize our preference to keep |
| 19 |
> keywords small and sensible." |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It seems the discussion has gone quiet for a while now, so I take that |
| 22 |
we choose ARCH=loong over ARCH=loongarch according to GLEP 53? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If that doesn't receive much objection, I'll prepare and send the first |
| 25 |
few eclass patches soon. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Ulrich |
Archives