RE: [PATCH 1/8] ld: Rename aarch64pe emulation target to arm64pe

[Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:25 AM
> To: nickc@redhat.com
> Cc: Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.com>; Tamar Christina
> <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>; Richard
> Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>; NightStrike
> <nightstrike@gmail.com>; wej22007@outlook.com; zac.walker@linaro.org;
> binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ld: Rename aarch64pe emulation target to arm64pe
> 
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023, Nick Clifton wrote:
> 
> > This would create duplicated code sure, but not too much, and it would
> > allow the linker to be compatible with Clang whilst still also
> > retaining the aarch64 moniker preferred by ARM.
> 
> As this still is framed as "compatible with Clang" - does this mean that you still
> insist that GCC should use a different emulation name when calling the
> linker, than what Clang does, forcing lld to also start recognizing that new,
> different emulation name - different from the one that has been in place for
> 5 years?

To be clear, GCC will very likely reject any port upstreaming that uses Arm64
for the same reason.  And GCC is a lot more tightly controlled.  At least if you
want upstream support.

Believe it or not I'm actually trying to help you here, the fact that clang has
called it arm64 is why we want to allow the alias.  As I mentioned before, it
just can't be the main name.

Tamar
> 
> // Martin