[llvmlinux] Unmatching Arch String for Aarch64/arm64

Behan Webster behanw at converseincode.com
Thu Jan 30 18:34:02 UTC 2014

On 01/30/14 10:00, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 30 January 2014 17:53, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com
> <mailto:behanw at converseincode.com>> wrote:
>     Quite frankly most of the people I talk to think that "AArch64"
>     was a bizarre choice as the official name; most people I've met
>     think "arm64" is a much more descriptive and sane name. The kernel
>     community has a habit of naming things what they think they should
>     have been called...
> If anything, "arm64" is easier to say out loud. Any other argument is
> meaningless, since they'll all end up as strings on a path or a file
> that will be auto-completed with TAB.
Well, also arm64 is clearly an arm (even to the uninitiated) whereas
aarch64 could be something entirely different. "arm64" satisfies the
rule of "least surprise", and is the most obvious choice IMHO. ARM
missed the boat on this one I think.

> The kernel community has the habit of calling whatever they want, and
> that's not always "sane". Least of all, it causes confusion.
True; not always what is sane. But IMHO their track record is arguably
better than most. ;)

>     compilers tend to follow architectural names; paths in the kernel
>     do not have to. They chose a name which makes more sense to the
>     wider development community.
> I don't buy this argument... we're still using x86_64 (which is a pain
> to type), but what do I know... ;)
Agreed. That is also a stupid name, though at least it is descriptive
and obvious. But since the port was done primarily by Intel, they chose
it... I don't believe ARM did the majority of the arm64 kernel port.

Another example of this is that Debian (and all Debian based distros)
still use the arch name of "amd64" for x86_64 which Intel doesn't like
at all.  AMD's amd64 chips predate the current x86_64 Intel chips
(though Intel had IA64 Itaniums at the time).

None of this really matters though, and is all just opinion. The reality
is that the arch name can be different between kernel and toolchain, and
is different in this case whether we like it or not...

Having said all that, regardless of whether a name is better or not, I
would prefer a consistent naming convention (even though I prefer amd64
and arm64, it would be more consistent to use x86_64 and aarch64 since
the powers-that-be chose those names)...

Both "sane" and "consistent" is preferable, but I'm okay if it is at
least one or the other. :)


Behan Webster
behanw at converseincode.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/attachments/20140130/e5c311ec/attachment.html>

More information about the LLVMLinux mailing list