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

[Martin Storsjö]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:00 AM
>> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
>> Cc: nickc@redhat.com; Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.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, Tamar Christina wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right - but in the case of GCC, it wouldn't be the name of a new port - it
>> would only be a single word in a file for passing linker arguments. Just like
>> how "-m i386pep" is passed for x86_64 today here:
>> https://github.com/gcc-
>> mirror/gcc/blob/345dffd0d4ebff7e705dfff1a8a72017a167120a/gcc/config/i38
>> 6/mingw-w64.h#L74
>>
>> So regardless of the binutils discussion, are you saying that GCC would reject
>> a patch that adds such an occurance that would pass "-m arm64pe", in a
>> patch that otherwise consistently calls the port "aarch64"?
>
> If it's driver only and has no source implications then It might be ok. 
> But look at this patch, it's not driver only. By renaming the emulation 
> target it also renamed the internal macros.  It makes us have to 
> maintain the name "arm64" in the source code along with what everything 
> else calls aarch64 and this has more implications.

Ok, thanks for clarifying the concern - I see your point now.

// Martin