Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

[Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:55:26AM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki 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.

Fix is in CVS.

> > 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
> mips64{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu-abi64. 
> 
> > 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... 

Well, that was one of the things that were handy at times.  Considering
the patch I sent to Linus yesterday to Linus did remove 41010 lines of code
that was a tiny price to pay.

  Ralf