Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751666AbXKJIp0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:45:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750766AbXKJIpQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:45:16 -0500 Received: from pip10.gyao.ne.jp ([61.122.117.248]:7193 "EHLO mx.gate01.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750695AbXKJIpN (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:45:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:44:47 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Message-ID: <20071110084447.GA18780@linux-sh.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Mundt , Jeff Garzik , Sam Ravnborg , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton References: <20071109230812.GA5176@uranus.ravnborg.org> <4735242B.1010801@garzik.org> <20071110075444.GA5707@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071110082152.GA18632@linux-sh.org> <47356AD5.4070102@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47356AD5.4070102@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1408 Lines: 33 On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:24:53AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Paul Mundt wrote: > >This is one of the things I've been wondering about with an sh/sh64 > >unification, as we have no option but having completely different > >toolchains, and CONFIG_64BIT=y won't work there when they are both > >using a 32-bit ABI. > > > IMO it seems like you ought to be able to do > > make ARCH=sh > or > make ARCH=sh64 > > and have it do the right thing. Ditto for ppc/ppc64, etc. > > Sane, straightforward, simple, consistent with existing practice... > Indeed, that's what I was intending on keeping around as a convention, and simply overloading SRCARCH for the sh64 case. i386/x86_64 potentially has the same issue though, and if the intent is to have a single ARCH for both of them, I don't see how that would possibly work without sacrificing randconfig.. unless the intended x86 convention is that one compiler will happily handle both i386 and x86_64 without any difficulty? The idea of a single SRCARCH and differing ARCHs for adjusting the build semantics as we have now is quite straightforward and seems clean enough without pushing for ARCH unification. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/