Hi,

On 12/01/2014 13:10, Aaro Koskinen wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

As remarked by Aaro Koskinen, changing the names of the Loongson 2 CPUs

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

(which is displayedd in /proc/cpuinfo) will break at least
GCC -march=native option. The name should be left unchanged.

Can I keep it as is and then submit a patch to GCC? I think it is important
to distinguish 2E/2F/3A in cpuinfo.

I think first the patch has to be integrated to GCC, and then you have
to wait at least a few months so that people start using the new
version. Then it should be possible to modify this.

That said, other programs than GCC might use this information from
/proc/cpuinfo and might also break with this change.

The GCC patch has been accepted yesterday, and the coming V17 patchset
won't be accept at least in kernel-3.14,
So, I'll keep the name in V17.

Kernel 3.15 is expected in roughly 6 months, it might still be a bit
tight for the change to propagate, even if I have seen it has been added
to the 4.8 branch. What the others things? Aaro?

It doesn't really matter if some future version of GCC supports the
new name. Most people will continue to use older toolchains for years,
and we shouldn't change the behaviour of those.

A.

NAK

Breaking the ABI is a really bad idea. I cannot think of any valid
reason that would allow me to merge this change.

    John