Re: GNU tools netbsd vs netbsdelf

Valery Ushakov <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.devel.toolchain
Message-ID <YMSBZvz8osonw/[email protected]>
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 08:12:58 +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:01:07PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > Anyway, a much less theoretical problem is: if you are closely enough
> > tied to the GNU triple system that a minor inconsistency like this
> > causes trouble, where will you be the next time they decide to change
> > it around upstream as a political football?
> 
> I still do not understand the original issue. The failure to build
> for
> 
> 	i686--netbsd
> 
> triggerd this, and while
> 
> 	i686--netbsdelf
> 
> was accepted by the upstream gcc configure script, it still does not make
> much sense, as it should be
> 
> 	i486--netbsdelf
> 
> instead. There are probably hundreds of targets you could configure that do
> not match any real NetBSD supported target, and the list varies over time
> (see recentish arm OABI removal).
> 
> So if you have to know what you are doing (or look it up) anyway, why
> is any change needed? I have never before seen anyone actually wonder
> about the names in this magic tuples, or suggest cosmetic changes.

+1

This looks an awful lot like a fools' errand to me.

Also, consider that people might have makefiles/scripts written for
the current names, so if $tools/shle--netbsdelf-gcc of say netbsd-9
suddenly becomes $tools/shle--netbsd-gcc in netbsd-10 - it just
creates random work for random people.  Now everyone have to adapt to
work with both older and newer versions so that you can make things
look a tiny bit nicer.

The current scehme works, warts and all, why break it?

-uwe
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.