machine/platform separation

Mon Jan 15 08:57:21 PST 2007

hey,

in the process in fixing gcc41 compilation and more, i hit this stupid machine/platform naming thing *again*.  this is getting bothersome.  where is the point in artificially introducing a name which is not used *anywhere* else?  i am not arguing against the logical separation between platform and machine (arch), but why wouldn't we use the default name for the default platform?  for one, i am absolutely opposing the creation of a platform "pc64".  this will be amd64.  this whole thing gets rea
lly complicated when cross-compiling, by the way.  oh, yes, cross compilation was broken again.  why do i even bother every once in a while making at least world cross compile when it gets broken again?  is it really so hard to at least try to keep the status quo wrt existing code?  in any case, i do not want to do a make buildworld TARGET_ARCH=amd64 TARGET=pc64.  this will not happen, that's absolutely ridiculous.  oh yea, a theoretical cross-build from amd64 to i386 would need TARGET_
ARCH=i386 TARGET=pc32.  come on.  this needs to be reverted after the release.
simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low â‚¬â‚¬â‚¬ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \