[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: port-arm/48193: On NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el for Raspberry Pi, MACHINE_ARCH returns earm, but *hf* is expected in /usr/share/mk/bsd.own.mk .
The following reply was made to PR port-arm/48193; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>
To: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
Subject: Re: port-arm/48193: On NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el for Raspberry Pi,
MACHINE_ARCH returns earm, but *hf* is expected in /usr/share/mk/bsd.own.mk .
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 02:34:33 -0700
On Sep 16, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
>> Uh, no. It solves the PR.
> No. It just worked around the problem, and then causes another =
> You should first define what MACHINE_ARCH and sysctl.hw.machine_arch =
> before touching sources. Kernel architectures? Userland binary ABI?
latter otherwise we could collapse a lot of machine_arches.
MACHINE_ARCH is also used by the pkgtools to delineate ABI as well.
>> It even solves the problem of untarring a different
>> implementation in a chroot and then getting the right MACHINE_ARCH =
for that tree.
> If hf and sf can be switched dynamically, it will cause confusion
> to have static MACHINE_ARCH in <arm/param.h> and dynamic one
> returned by sysctl.
MACHINE and MACHINE_ARCH in param.h should die. If you want the value,
use sysctl. I've been arguing that on ICB currently.
>> It can be backed out if and when someone comes up with a better =
> Probably you should read the commit guidelines again. You didn't
> have a prior discussion, and you didn't even test your changes.
> If core members don't have to have reviews even for exported API =
> I have no further comments though.
Well, I did test my changes. I determined that sysctl was doing what
I expected. It never occurred to me that make didn't use sysctl.
Main Index |
Thread Index |