Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
We're not trying to change the world here, so let's wait until a more urgent need presents itself before issuing plans for drastic changes to a format that has been firmly established for well over two decades, okay? > 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. Which systems are distributed in this manner? And what difference does C library they elect to use for system utilites make towards the compilation of user programs with Autoconf? To top it all off, considerations for such systems affect the entire GNU project, and config cannot unilaterally ordain decisions regarding their treatment. config-patches is definitely the wrong mailing list. Thanks.
