On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:45:41PM -0500, Sebastian Pop wrote: > 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.
The second makes sure that everything is consistent from the start, no chance of forgetting something in the middle. So yes, (2) is fine with me, but the "rename to something meaningful" part has to be part of a larger API change, since the host vs target misnaming is very sticky. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
