Po Lu wrote:
Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
but several existing tuples use a libc or ABI name in place of a
kernel and/or operating system.
In each of those cases, the ABI name _can_ be construed as a kernel
(since there is no kernel at all), or the libc name refers to a general
category of OS. Neither of these situations are applicable to MinGW or
MSVC.
Arguably, MinGW *is* an ABI name.
Either way, that ship has already sailed. So we're stuck with dubbing
MinGW an operating system.
No, we are not. CPU-VENDOR-KERNEL-OS-LIBCABI, with at least one of the
latter three omitted, fits the bill. In that case, the reference to
MinGW means that "OS" and/or "KERNEL" are omitted and MinGW is the ABI.
The next logical extension is to allow all five to be present, to
describe systems flexible enough to accommodate multiple ABIs.
Think about why the GNU project pushes to call the common system
"GNU/Linux" and you should see the reason for using
`*-*-linux-gnu-musl' to express a GNU/Linux system using musl libc.
If the GNU libc isn't being used, it's not a complete GNU system. We
should defer establishing suitable configuration names for Frankenstein
systems until the moment they come into existence.
The problem is that that example does exist, so we need to find a
systematic way to accommodate it before more such variant GNU systems
are produced and we have a real mess.
-- Jacob
