On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:39:08PM +0100, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:27 PM Konstantin Belousov > <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 06:16:02PM +0100, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 18:45:05 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 01:01:16AM +0000, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > > > Well, the arch(7) manpage documents __riscv__. Compilers typically > > > > provide both __XXX__ and __XXX, while FreeBSD traditionally uses > > > > the __XXX__ form. > > > > > > Please check r322168, __riscv__ is replaced by __riscv and > > > __riscv64 is replaced by (__riscv && __riscv_xlen == 64). Details are > > > in the commit message. > > > > > > Alghough I grep'd sys/ and there are some __riscv__ still existing: > > > > > > sys/vm/vm_unix.c:72:#if !defined(__aarch64__) && !defined(__riscv__) > > > sys/vm/vm_unix.c:81:#else /* defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__riscv__) */ > > > sys/vm/vm_unix.c:83:#endif /* defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__riscv__) */ > > > > > > I guess those also need changing, as well as arch(7) > > > > > > > > > > With that change, I think that your patch should go in regardless of > > > > the second issue below. > > > > > > Thanks, please commit or approve it. > > Why do you need an approval ? I already said that your patch looks fine. > > Oh, I did not realize that means a green light. Also I am not sure > about your opinion of __riscv and __riscv__. Does my original patch > look OK to you? The change to __riscv looks strange. At least arch(7) should be updated, but this also contradicts the usual syntax. Anyway, I do not have an opinion there, perhaps use __riscv since this apparently is what Ruslan wants to use.Received on Sun Jul 22 2018 - 20:04:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:17 UTC