Bug#240896: not pending anymore
Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Previously Stephen Frost wrote:means
>> Yes, we know, it's different from what the toolchain and kernel use. As
>> it happens, so is i386.
> Strangely enough my kernel, toolchain and dpkg all use i386.
Except it doesn't. In fact if you actually do compile c++ programs for
i386 they won't even work since i386 has a different ABI than i486+.
I even think that dpkg-architecture is buggy on i386 in reporting the
GNU arch as i386. The GNU arch, as used by the toolchain, is clearly
i486 and dpkg should report it as such.
If C++ programs use -march=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU) (or the respective
passed with --host to configure) they break.
> We should just pick a name that will not confuse people (and
> realize that in a few years amd might only produce a minority of 64bit
> chips after intel catches up), which includes it should be one that is
> used elsewhere (think toolchain and kernel) as well.
That would be x86_64, which we can't use as debian arch since an _ in
the architecture name is even more probelamtic than a -.