From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-95236-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3E74139360
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:14:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C065E0823;
	Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:14:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 815E3E081B
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:13:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (nullmailer pid 6323 invoked by uid 1000);
	Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:13:55 -0000
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:13:55 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port
Message-ID: <YRQTY8P3/LF0RKAP@linux1.home>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <b008ca13-896a-0a8f-3e9d-1be07cdd65d4@xen0n.name>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="B+vmHOvyQMUlefyD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b008ca13-896a-0a8f-3e9d-1be07cdd65d4@xen0n.name>
X-Archives-Salt: b344eb75-1ee1-42ba-bae4-f0fe2cbcc04e
X-Archives-Hash: f4a52cbedf6761c73cd56ce4bcfba20b


--B+vmHOvyQMUlefyD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:39:33AM +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote:
> I'm planning to take ARCH=3Dloongarch for the port; and support the LP64 =
ABI
> first. I'd like to support both LP64 and ILP32 ABIs, but that's not a
> priority.

>=20
> The ABI flag might be named "ABI_LOONGARCH" but that's IMO a bit long (pun
> semi-intended); ARCH=3Dloong and ABI_LOONG might be better, I'm open to
> suggestions.

FWIW, I like loong and ABI_LOONG better, or even better would be to use the
string `uname -m` returns for the hardware as ARCH and as the suffix for
ABI_.

William

--B+vmHOvyQMUlefyD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCYRQTXgAKCRBuVBb0MMRl
OAnMAKC5aTLmlSYuXPoIpVCfonfPVByg8gCeKtBxTLyyGflKjkNcQ7p5MfeWijM=
=pooJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--B+vmHOvyQMUlefyD--