home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- >I don't think that this is a good idea. The official name of the
- >ARM3 is ARM3, and it could be confusing to use ARM3 to mean ARM
- >Architecture version 3. Likewise, there is the ARM2, ARM6, ARM7 etc,
- >and I think that we'd be storing up trouble.
-
- This seems like a red herring. Can you think of any situation where it would
- cause trouble? As far as I can see there is no need to be able to refer to
- specific CPUs in the machine-name string. Any program that has sufficiently
- detailed knowledge of the ARM architecture that it needs to know which CPU is
- in use can easily enough include a specific autoconf check for that.
-
- Also, if it _did_ turn out that people needed to be able to do this, it
- wouldn't be the end of the world to extend the machine name string at some
- future date, either by adding an extra component or extending the first one
- to, say, `arm4_sa110'. I imagine we could devise some way to do this without
- terminally upsetting RPM.
-
- (On a somewhat unrelated topic, where did the `armo' and `armv' terminology
- spring from? I've wondered that on and off for years.)
-
- p.
-
-
- unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
-
-