On 07/08/2015 03:19 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Seen this way, it looks like 'Apple' is the future proof compiler id and > 'AppleClang' is the outlier (an alias could be introduced).
It is "AppleClang" because it is Apple's distribution of Clang. The reason it cannot just be "Clang" (like we use for Debian's distribution of Clang, for example) is that the version scheme is different. Perhaps it could have been "Apple" but we needed to keep "Clang" in the name for compatibility with code that checks if the compiler id MATCHES "Clang". Also during Apple's transition from GNU to Clang compilers it could have been confusing. The compiler id for the old Apple distributions of the GNU compiler should probably be AppleGNU because the feature set for each version number differs a bit, but those compilers are going away so there is no point in changing that now. > So, I don't think the name 'Apple' is so strange anymore. Okay, I think we'll stick with "Apple" for Swift. Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
