Matthew Dillon wrote:
Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote::At least 'i386' sucks as platform name. It's not true anymore that all :IA32 (yes, that's the CPU arch name Intel actually uses these days) CPUs :live in PC machines, and picking 'i386' as name for the machine with a :PC BIOS and an IA32 CPU is just confusing baggage. What would you name :the EFI+IA32 machine? efi386? mac386 (hah, wait 'til other manufacturers :start shipping IA32 boxen with EFI firmware)? And the (hypothetical?) :case of OFW+IA32? :Ofcourse, the rest of the world is still retarded, and we need to deal :with that. But going for 'i386' and 'amd64' is basically going for the :lowest common denominator. Sure, it's 'common practice', a 'de facto :standard', but it's WRONG.Part of the problem is that I only separated the code into two physical pieces (cpu and machine architectures) when I should have separated it into three (cpu, machine, and platform). At the time I felt three was too many. I even created three built-in MAKE variables, I just named them badly and didn't go far enough.
Introducing a third variable would certainly work around the issue, as you can keep 'machine' compatible with the rest of the world (e.g. for gcc host/target selection, uname -m output, etc), without having to give up the ideal of The Right Name For The Animal.
This will take a bit of CVS surgery
(I have to rename /usr/src/sys/machine to /usr/src/sys/platform). I
guess I should probably do it before we branch, which means delaying the
branch until Friday-ish (but not delaying the release which is still
going to be ~2 weeks).
Let's hope the week that's left for stabilising if necessary is enough :).
Cheers,
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
