On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 18:59 +0300, Dragomir Daniel wrote: >> >> arch-arm8a.inc add now support for armv8-A processors which support 2 >> states: >> 32-bit and 64-bit states. It makes more sense to have support for >> both states >> in the same inc file because both refer to the same arch. > > OK. And I assume you feel this is a greater benefit than having the > 32-bit ARMv8 bits in a single file that could be shared by ARMv8-R and > ARMv8-M, right?
For now, I think it is indeed better. When we add R and M flavours we can move the 32 bit for another file if we see the need but we ought to make it simple now. >> So, you say that we should not use aarch32 and aarch64 for armv8a, >> but to use something like armv8a64 and armv8a32? > > That would be my preference, but of course it's not my decision to > make. I like this as well. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
