Hi,
On 12/01/2014 13:10, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>>>>>> As remarked by Aaro Koskinen, changing the names of the Loongson 2 CPUs
>>>>>> > > >> > (which is displayedd in /proc/cpuinfo) will break at least
>>>>>> > > >> > GCC -march=native option. The name should be left unchanged.
>>>>>> > > >> >
>>>>> > > >> Can I keep it as is and then submit a patch to GCC? I think it is important
>>>>> > > >> to distinguish 2E/2F/3A in cpuinfo.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I think first the patch has to be integrated to GCC, and then you have
>>>> > > > to wait at least a few months so that people start using the new
>>>> > > > version. Then it should be possible to modify this.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > That said, other programs than GCC might use this information from
>>>> > > > /proc/cpuinfo and might also break with this change.
>>> > > The GCC patch has been accepted yesterday, and the coming V17 patchset
>>> > > won't be accept at least in kernel-3.14,
>>> > > So, I'll keep the name in V17.
>> >
>> > Kernel 3.15 is expected in roughly 6 months, it might still be a bit
>> > tight for the change to propagate, even if I have seen it has been added
>> > to the 4.8 branch. What the others things? Aaro?
> It doesn't really matter if some future version of GCC supports the
> new name. Most people will continue to use older toolchains for years,
> and we shouldn't change the behaviour of those.
>
> A.
>
NAK
Breaking the ABI is a really bad idea. I cannot think of any valid
reason that would allow me to merge this change.
John
