On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:52 AM, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:00:18AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> I certainly agree.. can it be changed please? > > I've waited a while to see what other opinions would be expressed on this > topic. I believe there is sufficient support to rename COMPAT_FREEBSD32 > to something else based on responses in the mailing lists. > > I am sorry if some may wish to label this a "bikeshead". But we seem to > have many folks disliking "COMPAT_FREEBSD32". > > > Based on responses to the topic of COMPAT_FREEBSD32, the following > were the suggestions offered: > COMPAT_ARCH32, COMPAT_ARCH_32BIT, COMPAT_32BIT_ARCH, COMPAT_32BIT, > COMPAT_FREEBSD32BIT
There's probably a bigger problem than just how we name it. The option really encodes 2 independent aspects: 1. Support for a 32-bit ABI (i.e. ILP32) 2. Support for a particular OS in ILP32. Of course 2 implies 1. For example: COMPAT_IA32 in sys/ia64/ia64/machdep.c enabled code to save and restore IA32 registers as part of cpu_switch(). In this context COMPAT_IA32 was perfectly named. It's now called COMPAT_FREEBSD32, which doesn't make a lot of sense because what if I only want to support Linux/ia32 and not FreeBSD/ia32 (or vice-versa if you club them under a single COMPAT_*32)? -- Marcel Moolenaar xcl...@mac.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
