On 9/19/23 20:19, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:46:26AM -0400, John Ericson wrote:
In 91f6a7f616b161c25ba2001861a40e662e18c4ad I supported `windows-gnu`
and `windows-msvc`, but I forgot about the last one: `windows-cygnus`.
Is windows-cygnus a new name for something already supported by
config.sub, or is it a new thing?
Yes, it is new name for something already supported. In particular, it
is a synonym for `cygwin`, just like `windows-gnu` is a synonym for
`mingw*`. (See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/edbdd2e5df8b59dac8ae5f45059407f8a79850d6
for the origin of those and `windows-msvc` in LLVM, all in the same commit.)
If you mean to not accept duplicates where the original isn't
defunct/abandoned (like `winnt` is), then yes the consistent thing to do
is reject this patch too.
On the other hand, if duplicate normal forms provided those normal forms
don't have other issues, then this patch is fine.
I knew this duplicating, the point was for (a) more LLVM/Rust/other
tools convergence and (b) ergonomic `windows-*` grouping/case-matching.
And indeed I believe that `windows-cygnus` has no other issues; no on
objected to `windows-cygnus` as misleading the way that many (correctly)
pointed out that `windows-gnu` is misleading. However, whereas LLVM does
not recognize `winnt`, it does recognize `cygwin` and `mingw*`, so
neither of these other `windows-*` normal forms are strictly necessary
for LLVM compat, just for my dream of converging normal forms between
projects.
Hope that clarifies everything; I'll live with whatever you choose to do :).
Cheers,
John
