On Nov 26 14:27, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25 11:24, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > > + switch (wincap.host_machine ())
> > > + {
> > > + case IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_AMD64:
> > > + n = stpcpy (buf, "-x64") - buf;
> > > + break;
> > > + case IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_ARM64:
> > > + n = stpcpy (buf, "-ARM64") - buf;
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + n = __small_sprintf (buf, "-%04y", (int) wincap.host_machine ());
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> >
>
> > You can greatly simplify this switch. We don't support 32 bit systems
> > and we will never again support 32 bit systems. Any combination
> > including a 32 bit system can just go away. Theoretically, only
> > the IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_ARM64 case should be left.
>
> Is the above edit enough, or do I need to remove the x64 case entirely as
> well? If you truly just want to handle ARM64, this whole function could
> be inlined into just an
>
> if (wincap.host_machine () != wincap.cygwin_machine ()
> && wincap.host_machine () == IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_ARM64)
> strcat (name->sysname, "-ARM64");
>
> For a little more future-proofing, nested if/else so non-ARM64 gets the
> hex fallback from the default case above.
I'm not opposed to a switch statement consisting of an
IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_ARM64 case and a default case adding "-???" or
something. Chances are so extremly slim that we'll ever see another
CPU emulated on x86_64, we can always add a case for that if it turns
out that I'm totally wrong, right?
Thanks,
Corinna
