Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On 1 December 2013 19:55, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hud...@linaro.org wrote: Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). Haha, go us. I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. I don't care too much myself. AArch64 is more correct but arm64 is more obvious. Also plan9/inferno will use arm64 IIUC. All the documentation relevant to this architecture uses the term aarch64. How is arm64 obvious? /Marcus
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Marcus Shawcroft marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 December 2013 19:55, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hud...@linaro.org wrote: Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). Haha, go us. I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. I don't care too much myself. AArch64 is more correct but arm64 is more obvious. Also plan9/inferno will use arm64 IIUC. All the documentation relevant to this architecture uses the term aarch64. How is arm64 obvious? The same reason Linus used arm64: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133 Thanks, Andrew Pinski /Marcus
Re: [golang-dev] Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On 2 Dec 2013, at 00:06, Rob Pike r...@golang.org wrote: arm64 it is This is perverse and completely inconsistent with the rest of the gnu tool chain. It makes no sense at all to me for go to be inconsistent in this way. R.
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On 29 Nov 2013, at 19:38, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: Please let's pick aarch64. Everybody names it this way, except of course Debian And the linux kernel. The Linux kernel reports aarch64 in its uname. It's only the source tree that uses arm64. Arm64 is also potentially problematic in regexp strings as it matches arm6*, which was used for some early ARM chips. R. :-/ If I understand ARM developers correctly, there will be something like aarch32 in the future (x32 for ARM), and I think you don't want to call it arm32. Matthias Am 29.11.2013 20:22, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. Ian On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: This patch introduces aarch64 as a Go architecture. Matthias
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote: All the documentation relevant to this architecture uses the term aarch64. How is arm64 obvious? The same reason Linus used arm64: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133 Thanks for the link, ah, now I exactly understand what that port is! :-) arm64 conveys more to me, more quickly.
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). Haha, go us. I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. I don't care too much myself. AArch64 is more correct but arm64 is more obvious. Also plan9/inferno will use arm64 IIUC. Cheers, mwh
Re: [golang-dev] Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
arm64 it is
[patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
This patch introduces aarch64 as a Go architecture.
Matthias
# DP: Introduce aarch64 goarch.
--- a/src/libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go
+++ a/src/libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go
@@ -5,4 +5,4 @@
package build
const goosList = darwin dragonfly freebsd linux netbsd openbsd plan9 windows
solaris
-const goarchList = 386 amd64 arm alpha m68k mipso32 mipsn32 mipsn64 mipso64
ppc ppc64 sparc sparc64
+const goarchList = 386 amd64 arm aarch64 alpha m68k mipso32 mipsn32 mipsn64
mipso64 ppc ppc64 sparc sparc64
--- a/src/libgo/configure.ac
+++ a/src/libgo/configure.ac
@@ -172,6 +172,7 @@
dnl N.B. Keep in sync with gcc/testsuite/go.test/go-test.exp (go-set-goarch).
is_386=no
+is_aarch64=no
is_alpha=no
is_arm=no
is_m68k=no
@@ -183,6 +184,10 @@
is_x86_64=no
GOARCH=unknown
case ${host} in
+ aarch64*-*-*)
+is_aarch64=yes
+GOARCH=aarch64
+;;
alpha*-*-*)
is_alpha=yes
GOARCH=alpha
@@ -265,6 +270,7 @@
;;
esac
AM_CONDITIONAL(LIBGO_IS_386, test $is_386 = yes)
+AM_CONDITIONAL(LIBGO_IS_AARCH64, test $is_aarch64 = yes)
AM_CONDITIONAL(LIBGO_IS_ALPHA, test $is_alpha = yes)
AM_CONDITIONAL(LIBGO_IS_ARM, test $is_arm = yes)
AM_CONDITIONAL(LIBGO_IS_M68K, test $is_m68k = yes)
--- a/src/gcc/testsuite/go.test/go-test.exp
+++ a/src/gcc/testsuite/go.test/go-test.exp
@@ -187,6 +187,9 @@
global target_triplet
switch -glob $target_triplet {
+ aarch64*-*-* {
+ set goarch aarch64
+ }
alpha*-*-* {
set goarch alpha
}
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. Ian On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: This patch introduces aarch64 as a Go architecture. Matthias
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
Please let's pick aarch64. Everybody names it this way, except of course Debian :-/ If I understand ARM developers correctly, there will be something like aarch32 in the future (x32 for ARM), and I think you don't want to call it arm32. Matthias Am 29.11.2013 20:22, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. Ian On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: This patch introduces aarch64 as a Go architecture. Matthias
Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: Please let's pick aarch64. Everybody names it this way, except of course Debian And the linux kernel. :-/ If I understand ARM developers correctly, there will be something like aarch32 in the future (x32 for ARM), and I think you don't want to call it arm32. Matthias Am 29.11.2013 20:22, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: I've gotten a patch from Michael Hudson-Doyle to set GOARCH to arm64 on an Aarch64 system (https://codereview.appspot.com/34830045/). I've gotten a patch from Matthias Klose to set GOARCH to aarch64 on such a system (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03765.html). I don't care one way or another myself, but we need to pick one. Ian On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote: This patch introduces aarch64 as a Go architecture. Matthias
Re: [golang-dev] Re: [patch] introduce aarch64 as a Go architecture
aarch64 is arguably correct but not very evocative (to speak politely). the arm marketing people must be uninterested in distinguishing their design from other systems. arm64 is clearer and in line with amd64, but possibly confusing therefore. aarch64 is perhaps the better choice but arm64 would be fine with me too. i too don't really care. -rob
