Hi Peter,
On 9/21/21 22:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 18:25, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 9/20/21 1:04 AM, WANG Xuerui wrote:
Signed-off-by: WANG Xuerui <g...@xen0n.name>
Be consistent with loongarch or loongarch64 everywhere.
If there's no loongarch32, and never will be, then there's probably no point in
keeping
the '64' suffix.
What does Linux 'uname -m' call the architecture, and what is the
name in the gcc triplet? Generally I think we should prefer to follow
those precedents (which hopefully don't point in different directions)
rather than making up our own architecture names.
uname -m says "loongarch64", the GNU triple arch name is also
"loongarch64". I'd say it's similar to the situation of RISC-V or MIPS;
except that a Linux port to the 32-bit variant of LoongArch might not
happen, precluding a QEMU port.
I think cpu=loongarch64 but ARCH=loongarch should be okay; at least it's
better than, say, the Go language or Gentoo, where this architecture is
named "loong64" and "loong"; or the binutils internals where it's "larch".
thanks
-- PMM
