[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current
> > >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> > >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
> > >>
> > >> hw.machine_arch
> > >>
> > >> which has been defined for a long long time.
> > >
> > > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
> > > you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic)
> > > without public discussion. That's the problem.
> > It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32).
> Then you also changed hw.machine_arch implementation but
> didn't notice MACHINE_ARCH in <machine/param.h> at that time?
> You proposed MACHINE_ARCH removal later, but
> you have never answered my question in that thread.
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By: matt
>> Date: Sat Oct 26 18:07:52 UTC 2013
>> Modified Files:
>> src/sys/arch/arm/include: param.h
>> Log Message:
>> Use CPP symbols to determine the right MACHINE_ARCH
Matt, you have changed your mind and committed different fix
without posting any messages to tech-* mailing list.
Please stop that.
Please post whole your strategy first before random bandaid fixes.
You have not answered about other sf/hf ports like mips and sh.
Main Index |
Thread Index |