From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=bcQx=5A=martin.st=martin@sourceware.org>
Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C18C3858D1E
	for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Tue,  3 Jan 2023 14:14:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21])
	by mail8.parnet.fi  with ESMTP id 303EDvZx032601-303EDva0032601;
	Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:13:58 +0200
Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-187.parnet.fi [77.234.97.187])
	by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC55A1471;
	Tue,  3 Jan 2023 16:13:57 +0200 (EET)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 16:13:56 +0200 (EET)
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= <martin@martin.st>
To: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>
cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>, 
    NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com>, Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.com>, 
    "wej22007@outlook.com" <wej22007@outlook.com>, 
    "zac.walker@linaro.org" <zac.walker@linaro.org>, 
    binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, "nickc@redhat.com" <nickc@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ld: Rename aarch64pe emulation target to arm64pe
In-Reply-To: <01e2b3d2-ad18-27ba-9761-82d2d521c00e@foss.arm.com>
Message-ID: <f85ed8cb-87cd-add8-a64-1fd21a4c6dd@martin.st>
References: <20221230024055.31841-1-mark@harmstone.com> <CAF1jjLsxDUx0FRKXs3zhRVMs=RokYoAbQRbQaDbZJtWOM5MmUA@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR08MB53259FF209098688F4E34A65FFF49@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <01e2b3d2-ad18-27ba-9761-82d2d521c00e@foss.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023, Richard Earnshaw via Binutils wrote:

> The problem with arm64 is that it also matches existing configure scripts 
> that use arm* for the 32-bit targets.  I don't think this is a good idea. 
> GNU tools have consistently used the official name for all targets.

This isn't for the name used in triples (which often are matched in 
configure scripts etc), but used for the ld emulation mode - where the 
current MinGW targets use the names "i386pe" for i386 and and "i386pep" 
for x86_64. I don't believe it's common to match those emulation names in 
configure scripts - these names are mostly a detail between how the 
compiler driver invokes the linker, and the linker itself.

// Martin