On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > On May 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:26:58AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> Then we disagree on this point. However, the disagreement here is > >> kinda foundational: to build a set of libraries or sys root, you have > >> to have a MACHINE_ARCH to make it work. Even in our current system, we > >> set MACHINE_ARCH to i386 or powerpc when building the 32-bit binaries > >> (note: we don?t do this for mips). This means that if we do grow x32 > >> support, we?ll need to grow a MACHINE_ARCH for it. That?s my point: > >> all ABIs have MACHINE_ARCH associated with them, and those are the > >> names users are used to specifying, and are the ones that are the most > >> natural for script writers to use. With nathan?s patches, we?re to the > >> point where those are used, though there?s also the option of using > >> the non-standard names if you want (e.g. amd64:32 instead of x32). > >> > > > > I am not sure if this comment would add anything to the discussion, > > but other build systems do not require MACHINE_ARCH. In our terms, > > other build systems are happy to build: > > i386 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -m32; > > x32 binary when MACHINE is amd64 and CFLAGS contains -mx32. > > > > For HEAD and stable/10 we finally reached the point where -m32 works, > > on amd64; it worked on powerpc64 from inception, AFAIU Nathan. At least > > this is true for dependencies limited to the base system, and not to the > > ports (the later is since ports do not know about multiarch). > > > > It is limitation of our build that we require MACHINE_ARCH to build > > other natively supported ABI binary on the host. Ideally, the hacks that > > treat lib32 build as the cross-compilation would go away eventually. > > I doubt it. The MACHINE_ARCH is used to select which files to build. Do I understand you right that the comment references e.g. a selection of arch-specific subdir in lib/libc or libexec/rtld-elf for inclusion into the build ? If yes, I cannot disagree with the statement.
My note was about our build system which currently requires full-fledged cross-build to even create i386 binary on amd64 vs. other builds which consider this as a (often minor) variations of the host target. Sure, some variances must be allowed, e.g. to select proper .S file for the ABI, but we do not need cross-build to get i386 on amd64.
pgpByBEJWf8mu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
