Simon ‘corecode’ Schubert has been busy; in addition to adding Noah Yan’s work to get a 64-bit world to cross-build, he’s switching to vendor branches in CVS, asking people to pay attention to the AMD64 changes in the tree, and wanting to dump the pc64 platform.
2 Replies to “Corecode runs amuck”
Comments are closed.
I think I have to agree with him on his stance on both the pc64 and the vendor brances for /contrib, as the way things are now it just seems like a bit of a mess…
Altho I’d personally just call the new combined platform “PC” since few if any people are going to be confused by it, and these days “IBM” seems more POWER related nowadays.
I thought I posted this already, but… bikeshed, bikeshed, bikeshed, I’d prefer to see ‘ibmpc’ used since it’s about as unambiguous as it gets for pre-EFI harwdare and would not create any future debates if someone does something crazy like a RISCPC port. (In turn, I could be off, but don’t some platforms — PowerPC PREP? — effectively inherit ibmpc ‘platform’ features, so at least any eventual crosslinking for reuse and consolidated maintenance would be obvious and clear?)
If we credit/blame AMD for origination of the amd64 CPU arch, it seems fair to credit and blame IBM for the ‘pc’ platform arch. I assume whatever IBM tosses POWER into these days would deserve an ibmpower arch, if not even one ‘arch’ per machine family…
The above said recognizing (at least assuming, it’s now been 4 days since I read the background linked) that keeping pc64 in its own sandbox makes sense until diffs from the first full working implementation can be cut to prove what exactly ends up touched or left alone to make it happen.