Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:35:37 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <20030129013537.GB1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030128164955.A7369@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030125153116.A25743@FreeBSD.org> <20030128.233856.71130419.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20030128120830.A81856@FreeBSD.org> <20030128225335.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128151749.A831@FreeBSD.org> <20030128235528.GA844@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128160936.A4252@FreeBSD.org> <20030129004006.GA945@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128164955.A7369@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > So, given that we have MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE already to our > > disposal, I don't get the feeling that we are in need to add > > something else because the problem space appears 2D, not 3D. > > > > Right? > > That's what I'm trying to do, in a clean way. See my "short version" > message, if you like. Ok. Now that we've established that the "platform" keyword is not needed, is there any meaning we attach to MACHINE that conflicts with the meaning it must have in order to solve the mips/powerpc problem? Or do we not attach a certain meaning to MACHINE that we should attach to it? For example: When building world, we can test for MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE. Do you need to select a (default) compiler target based on MACHINE or not? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030129013537.GB1016>