<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>Anyone want to propose platform names?<BR>
Adopt a "system" where "OS", toolset, runtime, processor, and/or pointer size are clear, or just keep using short CAPS informal non-systematic names?<BR>
<BR>
NT386Wat?<BR>
NT386WAT?? <== seems most likely given the current short informal CAPS non-systematic pattern <BR>
NT386WATCOM?<BR>
NT386Watcom?<BR>
NTx86Watcom?<BR>
Win32-x86-watcom?<BR>
win-x86-openwatom1.7?<BR>
NTAMD64? <== seems most likely given the current short informal CAPS non-systematic pattern <BR>
NTIA64?<BR>
win64-amd64-msc? (msc -- toolset and runtim, vs. say GNU or Watcom) <BR>
win-amd64-msc? (drop "64" in favor of architecture, leaving win-x86 ambiguous though -- win-286, win-386?)<BR>
win16?<BR>
win64? Or just win + architecture or nt + architecture?<BR>
Way too ambiguous. There is IA64 and there was Alpha64.<BR>
Consider there is also Windows CE.<BR>
win-mips?<BR>
win-powerpc?<BR>
wince-powerpc?<BR>winnt-powerpc?<BR>
msnt-powerpc?<BR>
msce-powerpc?<BR>
msce-arm?<BR>
<BR>
(msc -- "Microsoft C" -- toolset and runtime)<BR>
<BR>
I am not suggesting developering support for any of these mind you.<BR>
<BR>
Which reminds me -- most of the architectures are dead. Should they be deleted? Resusicated? Resusicated if gcc supports them? Do nothing?<BR>
I know I know, 64 bit integer support on NT386 is the most important thing to do right now.<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><BR><br /><hr />Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. <a href='http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline' target='_new'>Visit now.</a></body>
</html>