[erlang-patches] [PATCH] Detect arm/armel as ARCH=arm (to enable HiPE later on)

[Mikael Pettersson]

Michael Stapelberg writes:
 > Hi Mikeal,
 > 
 > Thanks for replying so fast.
 > 
 > Excerpts from Mikael Pettersson's message of 2010-09-22 23:17:18 +0200:
 > > What is the output of `uname -a' on this platform?
 > [sbox-FREMANTLE_ARMEL: ~] > uname -a
 > Linux maemo-desktop 2.6.27-16-generic #1 SMP Tue Dec 1 17:56:54 UTC 2009 arm GNU/Linux

This is broken.

 > On the Nokia N900 itself (on the running device, NOT the SDK), I get:
 > Nokia-N900:~# uname -a
 > Linux Nokia-N900 2.6.28.10power40 #1 PREEMPT Tue Aug 10 09:30:52 EEST 2010 armv7l unknown

This is better, except it looks like it's missing several fields.
Is that uname from a current coreutils or someone trying to emulate it.

 > > I must admit I've never seen Linux/ARM platforms omit the
 > > CPU ISA generation number before.  Accepting just plain 'arm'
 > > risks us running on .e.g ARMv4 which I can't guarantee
 > > will work -- HiPE has been developed and tested of ARMv5TE only.
 > > (Not that I care about v4.  But I get the blame if it
 > > built and then doesn't work at runtime.)
 > Ah, I see why you don’t have arm/armel in there now.
 > 
 > > So why doesn't "maemo platform" say arm{v5,v6,v7}
 > > like real native Linux platforms do?
 > I have no idea. Maybe the best way to go is to include patches in the maemo
 > package of erlang for this issue?

Either that or get the maemo people to fix their uname to
be less broken.  I cannot really accept maemo's plain "arm"
as an alias for "I meant armv7" as that could create new
failure modes on pre-v7 processors.  What if some other SDK
did the same, except _their_ "arm" meant "armv5te"?