John Ericson <l...@johnericson.me> writes: > I challenge you to find me a public project where this `winnt` is still in > use.
Why is that of such importance? That it was used in the past is reason enough to retain it. > Yes Clang does define it, see > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#microsoft-extensions. If > it didn't, Clang would be failing in its goal to compile software > written for Microsoft's tools with as few modifications as possible. So it is *-*-winnt. > I have proposed a way to turn those follies into non-follies, which > would also help with this, and do so without breaking backwards > compatibility. I don't think config.sub ever made any formal > guarantees about what its output would look like anyways. I don't > think I have any more to say on this part. I recall several commitments of this nature being made here, within this thread, in the past month alone.
