"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Alpha has multiple platforms, but it has not been made explicit.
> : pc98 is an alternate platform for i386. And we have PowerPC and
> : mips.
>
> Keep in mind that for mips you
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:09:57AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : general theme. Thus (in this case), ARCH=mips and MACH=algor or
> : MACH=sgimips...
>
> Actually, NetBSD uses MACHINE_ARCH=mipsel for lit
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Alpha has multiple platforms, but it has not been made explicit.
: pc98 is an alternate platform for i386. And we have PowerPC and
: mips.
Keep in mind that for mips you have two different architectures:
mip
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: general theme. Thus (in this case), ARCH=mips and MACH=algor or
: MACH=sgimips...
Actually, NetBSD uses MACHINE_ARCH=mipsel for little endian machines
and MACHINE_ARCH=mips for big endian machines. However,
Any reason why the NetBSD approach to this problem won't work? IMHO,
the meta-port should drive the derived ports. The static parts of the
system are radically different between the different mips platforms.
Using the endian.h stuff as an example:
src/sys/arch/arc/include/endian.h is just "#inc
On 30-Jan-2003 Benno Rice wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:57, David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:46:47PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> > I would not introduce a , but rather
>> > . The reason for this is that the
>> > /usr/include/platform directory is only needed on powerpc
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:57, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:46:47PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > I would not introduce a , but rather
> > . The reason for this is that the
> > /usr/include/platform directory is only needed on powerpc and mips,
> > which seems to indicate th
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:48, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:37:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > I've made a note that you don't think my way is optimal. I do, and
> > that's that, at this point. No black magic, no convoluted config
> > files, etc. Go deal with the ODE confi
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:37:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > I've made a note that you don't think my way is optimal. I do, and
> > that's that, at this point. No black magic, no convoluted config
> > files, etc. Go deal with the ODE config and Mach's configuration
>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:46:47PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> I would not introduce a , but rather
> . The reason for this is that the
> /usr/include/platform directory is only needed on powerpc and mips,
> which seems to indicate that it should be under . Also,
> the use of machine/${variant
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:37:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> I've made a note that you don't think my way is optimal. I do, and
> that's that, at this point. No black magic, no convoluted config
> files, etc. Go deal with the ODE config and Mach's configuration
> files, I have. Or NetBSD's.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:13:22PM -0500, Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Benno Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:18, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > > * De: Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> > > [ Subjecte: Re: Pa
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:28:33PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > I thought the idea was to have machine be usable for platforms, so
> > as to have the mapping machine->MACHINE. This makes the keyword
> > unusable for handling the pc98 case. I guess I was confused (now
> > you know who needs t
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:55:30PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
&
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:55:30PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > If we just make "machine" mean more of what it mean
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > If we just make "machine" mean more of what it means now, then we're
> > set.
>
> But pc98 needs to be dealt
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:55:42AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > What if an architecture doesn't have different platforms. Do we
> > want to give a platform name that matches the architecture or
> > do we make platform optional? I think I prefer it to be optional.
> > This could mean we have
* De: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
>
> On 29-Jan-2003 Benno Rice wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:46, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:19:38PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> > > > Or are you saying that you would prefer to change how the machi
On 29-Jan-2003 Benno Rice wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:46, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Agreed. There's an advantage there, but see also my reply to
>> > > Juli about the use of "machine" to mean MACHINE_ARCH and the
>>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:19:38PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
>
> > The same happens in config(8) where we create a platform link
> > in all cases, not just for powerpc and mips.
>
> Ok, the nice side to having platform/foo.h is that (to go back to the
> endian example) you can have machine/endian.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:56:59PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > You see how the current approach affects other architectures if you
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:46, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed. There's an advantage there, but see also my reply to
> > > Juli about the use of "machine" to mean MACHINE_ARCH and the
> > > use of "platform" to mean MACHINE. Th
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> You see how the current approach affects other architectures if you
> look at the diff for src/sys/conf/kmod.mk. All architectures,
> i
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:58:53PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> And no, it wasn't really bikeshedding, it just began to feel that
> it was just a matter of "but I think we should go at it from this
> angle" when really all I intended to get was whether or not my
> code was OK. I fell short ther
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. There's an advantage there, but see also my reply to
> > Juli about the use of "machine" to mean MACHINE_ARCH and the
> > use of "platform" to mean MACHINE. This I don't find appealing.
>
> I can see your point here, but
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:20:52PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > Sorry if you find it childish to want to move on from that sort
>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:20:52PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > Your proposal affects FreeBSD. I'm having a constructive discussion
> > about your proposal because I like to understand your point of
> > view and tell you mine. Childish behaviour does not impress me.
> > In fact it only tells
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 17:25, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:56:10PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I see MACHINE_ARCH implied by where you run config. This seems
> > > strange and I'm not completely sure it's a good thing, but
> > > MACHINE_ARCH is defined in /sys/$
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:56:10PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote:
> >
> > No, I see MACHINE_ARCH implied by where you run config. This seems
> > strange and I'm not completely sure it's a good thing, but
> > MACHINE_ARCH is defined in /sys/${ARCH}/include/param.h and
> > defining the architecture in the
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:37:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > > but it explcitly means a location, a path. The intr
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:37:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > but it explcitly means a location, a path. The introduction of
> > platform is more confusing. First of all it maps to MACHINE,
> > while we have the machine keyword mapping to something else.
>
> MACHINE is a cpp define and (rel
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 16:18, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:57:38PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you are following me. But also, you mention that "machine"
> > as implemented means what I said it means, but there is other
> > precident for using it as I say. For
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:57:38PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you are following me. But also, you mention that &qu
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:57:38PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> Yes, you are following me. But also, you mention that "machine"
> as implemented means what I said it means, but there is other
> precident for using it as I say. For example, BSD/OS uses
> "machine sparc" and "options SUN4M". Ne
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > Good. What is the new paradigm?
> >
> > As explained, you have a master port, to the architecture, assume that
>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:01:58PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > > > We attach lots of meaning to MACHINE. You keep m
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Benno Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd also like to point out that PowerPC will benefit greatly from this.
> > PowerPC platforms vary wildly in how they do various things (incl.
> > endianness in some cases) and so this provides a much cleaner mechanism
> > to select
* De: Mike Barcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> Benno Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:18, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > > * De: Juli Mallet
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > > We attach lots of meaning to MACHINE. You keep missing that that
> > > > is NOT the same as the "machine"
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:20:13PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > No, we have not established that.
> >
> > *s
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > No, we have not established that.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Is the problem space 2D or 3D?
Define your terms better. I could argue t
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:42:59PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >
> > > So, given that we have MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE alre
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> > So, given that we have MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE already to our
> > disposal, I don't get the feeling that we are in need to add
> > something else because the problem space appears 2D, not 3D.
> >
> > Right?
>
> That's what I'm
Benno Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:18, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * De: Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> >
> > In short,
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > But
> > that determines what is a link to, and files. that is
> > read. So that means that we need to have stubbed in bot
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:09:36PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:17:49PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:18, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
>
> In short, platform provides machinery for a single port of FreeBSD
> which repr
* De: Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
In short, platform provides machinery for a single port of FreeBSD
which represents exactly one MACHINE_ARCH to support a numbe of
different ha
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:17:49PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
&
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:17:49PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > > I just really would like things to be clean, and abstracted, an
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> > I just really would like things to be clean, and abstracted, and not waste
> > anyone's time. Why should we have to duplicat
[sorry -- dropping in the middle of the thread]
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:08:30PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
> This approach is a really bad one architecturally, in my opinion. It means
> there is a lot of duplication of what may all be VERY similar, and it means
> that if we had say 5 platfo
* De: Takahashi Yoshihiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For example "platform sg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example "platform sgimips" implies
> "options SGIMIPS". Below are patches to makefile glue and config(8)
> itself.
I think that using '#ifdef ' (like #ifdef PC98) is not a good
idea. If it requires, the file should be
* De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-26 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ]
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 03:31:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > This patch is needed for the MIPS port's infrastructure, and wil
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 03:31:16PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> This patch is needed for the MIPS port's infrastructure, and will be
> needed for the PowerPC one, as given ports may support any number of
> platforms, on those architectures (and arguably, the same applies to
> i386 vs. pc98, but his
This patch is needed for the MIPS port's infrastructure, and will be
needed for the PowerPC one, as given ports may support any number of
platforms, on those architectures (and arguably, the same applies to
i386 vs. pc98, but historically...). What it does is it sets up a
build-time (and install-t
59 matches
Mail list logo
