originally i was going to reuse ARCH=arm for aarch64 (and that's what the code
in the tree is doing now). however, after playing with things and debating it
in my head, i think we should create a new ARCH=aarch64.
reasons:
- aarch64 is not a simple extension over arm at the ISA level like x86_64 is
over i686. it's a new ISA.
- hand written assembly language cannot be shared at all -- with x86_64, you
could sometimes write code that the assembler would automatically turn into
the right output (64bit/x32/32bit).
- the aarch64 gcc port itself does not support arm -- you need a complete
second toolchain
- the way the hardware is being designed, it is possible to have a CPU that
only supports aarch64 (no arm at all)
it does mean we'll have to re-seed ebuilds with KEYWORDS=aarch64, but that's
just how it goes.
-mike
in the tree is doing now). however, after playing with things and debating it
in my head, i think we should create a new ARCH=aarch64.
reasons:
- aarch64 is not a simple extension over arm at the ISA level like x86_64 is
over i686. it's a new ISA.
- hand written assembly language cannot be shared at all -- with x86_64, you
could sometimes write code that the assembler would automatically turn into
the right output (64bit/x32/32bit).
- the aarch64 gcc port itself does not support arm -- you need a complete
second toolchain
- the way the hardware is being designed, it is possible to have a CPU that
only supports aarch64 (no arm at all)
it does mean we'll have to re-seed ebuilds with KEYWORDS=aarch64, but that's
just how it goes.
-mike
Attached Files:
-
signature.asc (0.82 KB)