<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Do people object to new platform names like:<BR>
<BR> PPC32_OPENBSD <BR> SPARC32_OPENBSD <BR> SPARC32_LINUX <BR>
<BR>
?<BR>
For that matter, anyone consider spelling out POWERPC32_OPENBSD?<BR>
<BR>?<BR>
<BR>Seriously I am far along on <FONT face="">PPC32_OPENBSD</FONT> and SPARC64_OPENBSD<BR>and once those work, I figure I'll try to flesh out Linux, NetBSD,<BR>FreeBSD on ppc32/sparc/sparc64. So this isn't just hypothetical<BR>
debate about platform names.<BR>
<BR>
At some point it almost seems like there's a 2 dimensional matrix<BR>and the support should be processor and OS, somewhat independent..<BR>well, it is kind of like in parts already.<BR>
<BR>
Should I really stick more like:<BR> PPC_OPENBSD <BR> SPARC_LINUX <BR> SPARC64_LINUX <BR> etc.?<BR>
<BR>64bits isn't so unusual now, that 32bits isn't so automatically implied???<BR>
That's kind of my point. Not putting in "32" or "64" used to imply "32" but<BR>
now seems almost ambiguous. ?<BR>
<BR>(Linux doesn't really still support 32 bit SPARC kernels, but<BR>definitely 32 bit userland; in fact it looks like SPARC Linux<BR>is mostly 32 bit userland, and SPARC64 OpenBSD is purely 64 bit,<BR>not even gcc -m32)<BR>
<BR>I'd still kind of like to rename stuff like to<BR> I386_NT, I386_LINUX, I386_CYGWIN, I386_MINGWIN, SPARC_SOLARIS_SUN,<BR> SPARC_SOLARIS_GNU, alas... <BR>
<BR> - Jay<BR><BR></body>
</html>