On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:> I like this direction in general, but:Excellent!> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <abdulras at fb.com> wrote: > {armv7,i686,x86_64}-windows-{ia,mingw,ms}pe > > First a correction, I assume you mean: {armv7,i686,x86_64}-<vendor>-windows-{ia,mingw,ms}peThat is indeed what I meant.> I think these are the wrong ABI names. And if the environments are uniformly PE, I don't think we should bother with it.I should have been more clear, the currently supported environments are PE. There are versions of Windows which use other formats, and so I would prefer to retain the PE.> I would suggest: > > ...-windows-{msvc,gnu,itanium} > > MSVC is obvious. > Itanium is obvious. > GNU -> mingw's oddity. > > Rationale: > The "Min" isn't relevant to the ABI. The "W" is redundant. The "G" is the only relevant part, and it stands for GNU.The rational is entirely valid. You raise an excellent point that I failed to consider, MinGW is really "Minimalist GNU on Windows”. I find ia (or ia64) to be nicer, but, Id be happy enough with itanium. Would you be willing to agree to: {armv7,i686,x86_64}-<vendor>-windows-{ia,gnu,ms}pe -- Saleem Abdulrasool abdulras (at) fb (dot) com
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <abdulras at fb.com> wrote:> Would you be willing to agree to: > > {armv7,i686,x86_64}-<vendor>-windows-{ia,gnu,ms}pe >I think 'msvc' is the only acceptable format. ;] I don't really like 'ia' or 'ia64'. Those are CPU architectures, and very specific ones. http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html says "Itanium C++ ABI". I think the name should reflect what that document says. I'd actually rather prefer "<abi>-<fileformat>" as otherwise this is completely illegible. But that's not deal breaker for me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140227/85d3d315/attachment.html>
> Would you be willing to agree to: > > {armv7,i686,x86_64}-<vendor>-windows-{ia,gnu,ms}peYou're opening big can of worms here... Note, that stuff like "i386-mingw32" and similar target triples should be supported regardless of this "canonical" scheme. Also: - Debian uses "i586-mingw32msvc" triple - There is mingw-w64 which uses "x86_64-w64-mingw32" and "i686-w64-mingw32" -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Anton Korobeynikov < anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:> Note, that stuff like "i386-mingw32" and similar target triples should > be supported regardless of this "canonical" scheme. >FWIW, I interpret the original email as explicitly saying that existing (widely used) triples need to keep working. We already have lots of aliases so this doesn't seem like an undue burden. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140227/35b097c4/attachment.html>