On 14/05/18 14:34, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
> <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>>> wrote:
>
> On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote:
> > Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like
> > "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv
target is
> > structured?
>
> In case you want to name the new architecture "amd64", then
the tool
> chain should be renamed as well, currently we have
> x86_64-rtems5-gcc, etc.
>
>
> The target is picked after the GNU target name. We have always
agreed
> with the GNU target name.
Ok, makes sense. Will the new stuff support the 32-bit instruction
set?
I have no idea. On a native Linux or BSD toolset, does -m32 produce
the same 32 bit ABI code as i386-elf?
I am pretty sure our x86_64 toolset does not have the 32 bit multilibs.
In fairness, even though x86_64 appears to be the canonical name,
maybe amd64 is an acceptable alias. Internally, the tools use x86_64
though.
I would prefer to stick to the canonical name internally.
All targets use the canonical name up to now (riscv is a small exception
with riscv32 and riscv64). I would not make an exception for the current
Intel architecture invented by AMD. Either name it x86 (if there is a
potential 32-bit support, why would you use it?) or x86_64.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
