Naming scheme - target_arch for MIPS in Chromium?

[Petar Jovanovic]

Next step in adding support for MIPS will be a set of small patches to
gyp files to enable the architecture.
We currently target MIPS32 platforms, but we would like to leave room
for MIPS64 support.
As naming scheme is not that solid among Chromium and third party
projects that Chromium embeds, it is a question what would be most
suitable name for 'target_arch'. Options are:

a) target_arch=="mips32"
b) target_arch=="mips"
c) target_arch=="mipsel"

The option b) would presume EL anyway.
Does anybody have any strong opinion on this?

Petar

p.s. on native client, we currently set "platform" to "mips32", "arch"
to "mips", and "subarch" to "32".

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

I think following the Linux distro naming scheme could be useful (to limit number of different, incompatible conventions).

For example:

Gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-mips-faq.xml) : mips = big endian, mipsel = little endian

Debian (http://www.debian.org/ports/mips/) : seems to follow similar convention

--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev

[Mike Frysinger]

the distro conventions generally follow the toolchain conventions as
well (what config.sub does)

which is to say, mips defaults to 32bit big endian, while mipsel is little

if you plan on supporting other ABIs (o32/n32/n64), then you should
probably add a target_abi knob for it ...
-mike

[Petar Jovanovic]

Well, what you both suggested is the option c) that we already
internally use in gyp files.

Speaking of the distros, discussion on the naming scheme will reach
their territory as well. E.g. the case with Debian is that they say
"mipsel" and they compile it for "MIPS-1" which is an ancient subset
of MIPS32. And we would benefit from pure and optimized MIPS32 rootfs
(that could be named mipsel32-hf, mipsel32r2-hf, etc).

Petar