Re: machine/platform separation

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Part of the problem is that I only separated the code into two
>     physical pieces (cpu and machine architectures) when I should have
>     separated it into three (cpu, machine, and platform).  At the time I
>     felt three was too many.  I even created three built-in MAKE variables,
>     I just named them badly and didn't go far enough.

where is the difference between platform and machine?

can't we use:

cpu == arch (== machine?):
- i386
- amd64

platform:
- i386
- amd64
- vkernel

and have everything covered?

does it *have* to be a different name for platform and cpu?  i mean, that's two different namespaces, i do not see any harm using i386 as a platform name.  my goal is to keep things as easy as possible.  a cross-build should just require TARGET_ARCH=amd64, or fwiw, TARGET_PLATFORM=vkernel.  but the nomenclature should be sensible and follow POLA.

cheers
 simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \