From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ED464139360 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 06:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C057E0937; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 06:01:05 +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 075D1E0930 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 06:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:00:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4eb1c199-af10-cc46-faf2-5396b2de5f09@xen0n.name> References: <4eb1c199-af10-cc46-faf2-5396b2de5f09@xen0n.name> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: d0bde884-5814-4fda-9d04-6a21cddc9789 X-Archives-Hash: 1852ec01042324d2c3244fb4bee0005c On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > On 8/12/21 02:13, William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:39:33AM +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > > > I'm planning to take ARCH=loongarch 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. > > > The ABI flag might be named "ABI_LOONGARCH" but that's IMO a bit long (pun > > > semi-intended); ARCH=loong 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_. > > Ahh I forgot to mention that... > > $ uname -m > loongarch64 > > And the triple is "loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"; kernel port sits at > arch/loongarch; almost everything except Go uses the "loongarch" > version. Go people didn't like duplicating "arch" for their GOARCH > value, so it's "GOARCH=loong64" there, otherwise the Loongson people > pushing their agenda would have used "loongarch64" too. > > I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally > long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's > perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but > "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. > I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". -- Best regards, Michał Górny