[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071110084447.GA18780@linux-sh.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:44:47 +0900
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> >This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64
> >unification, as we have no option but having completely different
> >toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both
> >using a 32-bit ABI.
>
>
> IMO it seems like you ought to be able to do
>
> make ARCH=sh
> or
> make ARCH=sh64
>
> and have it do the right thing. Ditto for ppc/ppc64, etc.
>
> Sane, straightforward, simple, consistent with existing practice...
>
Indeed, that's what I was intending on keeping around as a convention,
and simply overloading SRCARCH for the sh64 case. i386/x86_64 potentially
has the same issue though, and if the intent is to have a single ARCH for
both of them, I don't see how that would possibly work without
sacrificing randconfig.. unless the intended x86 convention is that one
compiler will happily handle both i386 and x86_64 without any difficulty?
The idea of a single SRCARCH and differing ARCHs for adjusting the build
semantics as we have now is quite straightforward and seems clean enough
without pushing for ARCH unification.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists