On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:55:26AM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > > I hope `uname -m' will continue to report the correct architecture and
> > > that ARCH will be correctly handled (i.e. "mips" selecting a 32-bit build
> > > and "mips64" a 64-bit one) -- have you considered this?
> >
> > Not intend to change the behaviour of uname. It actually changed in CVS,
> > for now consider that a bug ...
>
> OK, I will.
Fix is in CVS.
> > We should consider changing the behaviour though. A machine type of
> > mips64 broke lots of software. Of course that was all 32-bit softare but
> > it raises the question if returning mips64 is really a good idea?
>
> Yes it is. It is the only way to check if the kernel is 32-bit or 64-bit
> and config.guess needs it for guessing the canonical system name. That,
> plus checking the default ld emulation lets it (or will let, once written)
> select what is the proper default native configuration:
> mips{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu, mips64{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu-abin32 or
> mips64{,el}-unknown-linux-gnu-abi64.
>
> > As for choosing a 32-bit vs. 64-bit kernel, that's now a menu point and can
> > be choosen like every other config option.
>
> Well, I liked the `make "ARCH=mips64"' way, but I suppose I'll have to
> live with your change, sigh...
Well, that was one of the things that were handy at times. Considering
the patch I sent to Linus yesterday to Linus did remove 41010 lines of code
that was a tiny price to pay.
Ralf
