On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > I've told you already, I think deriving the default value of > LLVM_HOSTTRIPLE from $target makes more sense. What I object to is > introducing another macro and associated support code which doesn't > serve any purpose.
How are these two different: 1. create LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET from $target, and remove LLVM_HOSTTRIPLE (I'll let you post a patch that removes LLVM_HOSTTRIPLE as you said that HOST is unused) 2. derive LLVM_HOSTTRIPLE from $target as you proposed, then rename LLVM_HOSTTRIPLE into something more meaningful, like what I proposed LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET. ? Thanks for clarifying your stand point if it differs from the two above. Sebastian -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc is a member of Code Aurora Forum _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
