Re: config.sub should normalize *-*-windows-*

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Po Lu wrote:
> Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
> [...]
>
> > > > but several existing tuples use a libc or ABI name in place of a
> > > > kernel and/or operating system.
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > In each of those cases, the ABI name _can_ be construed as a kernel
> > > (since there is no kernel at all), or the libc name refers to a general
> > > category of OS.  Neither of these situations are applicable to MinGW or
> > > MSVC.
> > >   
> > >       
> > Arguably, MinGW *is* an ABI name.
> >     
>
> Either way, that ship has already sailed.  So we're stuck with dubbing
> MinGW an operating system.
>   

No, we are not.  CPU-VENDOR-KERNEL-OS-LIBCABI, with at least one of the 
latter three omitted, fits the bill.  In that case, the reference to 
MinGW means that "OS" and/or "KERNEL" are omitted and MinGW is the ABI.  
The next logical extension is to allow all five to be present, to 
describe systems flexible enough to accommodate multiple ABIs.

> > Think about why the GNU project pushes to call the common system
> > "GNU/Linux" and you should see the reason for using
> > `*-*-linux-gnu-musl' to express a GNU/Linux system using musl libc.
> >     
>
> If the GNU libc isn't being used, it's not a complete GNU system.  We
> should defer establishing suitable configuration names for Frankenstein
> systems until the moment they come into existence.

The problem is that that example does exist, so we need to find a 
systematic way to accommodate it before more such variant GNU systems 
are produced and we have a real mess.


-- Jacob