[llvmlinux] Proposal for new naming convention to targets

[Charlebois, Mark]

Would it be better just to create a top level directory for arch? ARM, AArch64, x86, x86_64? I am not sure -linux- or -android- adds much value unless we are supporting multiple user spaces per target.

-Mark
________________________________________
From: llvmlinux-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org [llvmlinux-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org] on behalf of Tinti [viniciustinti at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:35 AM
To: Jan-Simon Möller
Cc: llvmlinux
Subject: Re: [llvmlinux] Proposal for new naming convention to targets

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Jan-Simon Möller <jsmoeller at linuxfoundation.org<mailto:jsmoeller at linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
The naming is kind of similar to how toolchains are named e.g. in ct-ng .
Well we're not far off-topic anyway regarding toolchaing.

Yes. I do like the toolchain naming (like Linaro does).

> arm-linux-beaglebone
> arm-linux-vexpress
> arm64-linux-vexpress
> x86-linux-pc
> x86_64-linux-pc

is fine with me.

> arm-linux-beaglebone
> armhf-linux-beaglebone
> arm-linux-rpi
> armhf-linux-rpi

is a lot more variants - do we want to maintain all ? or just pick a default
(armhf) and allow a switch for softfp "at own risk".

We do not need to have all variants. If we or someone are interested in maintain two variants it must follow this naming convention. For example, Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone are candidates to this situation.

The year suffix is something I don't like atm. We should convert the snapshots
to the new paths .

Yes. I did not like it that much too but was the best simple and soft solution that I could mind.

Best,
JS


Regards
Tinti

--

Sincerely yours,

Jan-Simon Möller

jsmoeller at linuxfoundation.org<mailto:jsmoeller at linuxfoundation.org>
Am Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2014, 13:06:42 schrieb Tinti:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a new naming convention for our targets to address
> some name problems that we may have (soon). Currently, for instance, we
> just use 'beaglebone' to refer the BeagleBone board. But it does not say
> some key points:
>
> - Which architecture? (arm, arm64, x86. x86_64)
> - Which target system? (Linux, Android)
> - How to handle name collision? (Nexus 7 2012, Nexus 7 2013)
> - Which abi? (armhf, armel)
> - Which system flavor? (AOSP, Cyanogenmod, Linaro, Yocto)
>
> Some of these questions may not be that important but the first three are.
> Thus I would like to propose the following convention:
>
> <arch>[<abi>]-<system/flavor>-<name>[_year]
>
> For example BeagleBone, vexpress, vexpress64, i586 and x86_64 would become:
>
> arm-linux-beaglebone
> arm-linux-vexpress
> arm64-linux-vexpress
> x86-linux-pc
> x86_64-linux-pc
>
> For BeagleBone and Raspberry Pi we may need to add the "abi" since they can
> use both:
>
> arm-linux-beaglebone
> armhf-linux-beaglebone
> arm-linux-rpi
> armhf-linux-rpi
>
> For adding a specific system we could replace the system for the flavor:
>
> arm-linux-nexus7
> arm-cyanogenmod-nexus7
> arm-yocto-nexus7
>
> Changing the name probably will break the "checkpoint" feature. Hence what
> I would suggest it to keep the old name and add the new one with an year
> suffix.
>
> arm-linux-nexus7
> arm-linux-nexus7_13
>
> What do you think? I appreciate any suggestion or better conventions for
> this. Specially for the ABI point of view.
>
> If we could always split by only '-' we could do even some cool operations
> such list all x86 targets, test all arm targets and so forth.
>
> Regards,
> Tinti




--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication