[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS linux

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: CVS linux
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:55:26 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: Keith M Wesolowski <>, "Kevin D. Kissell" <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> >  I hope `uname -m' will continue to report the correct architecture and
> > that ARCH will be correctly handled (i.e. "mips" selecting a 32-bit build
> > and "mips64" a 64-bit one) -- have you considered this?
> Not intend to change the behaviour of uname.  It actually changed in CVS,
> for now consider that a bug ...

 OK, I will.

> We should consider changing the behaviour though.  A machine type of
> mips64 broke lots of software.  Of course that was all 32-bit softare but
> it raises the question if returning mips64 is really a good idea?

 Yes it is.  It is the only way to check if the kernel is 32-bit or 64-bit
and config.guess needs it for guessing the canonical system name.  That,
plus checking the default ld emulation lets it (or will let, once written)
select what is the proper default native configuration: 
mips{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu, mips64{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu-abin32 or

> As for choosing a 32-bit vs. 64-bit kernel, that's now a menu point and can
> be choosen like every other config option.

 Well, I liked the `make "ARCH=mips64"' way, but I suppose I'll have to
live with your change, sigh... 

+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>