On 12/07/10 14:25, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This means that we need to choose a name for it. Obviously, it's better
if it's an "official" name, so I want to discuss it here. I'm aware that
there is some bikeshedding to do here, but it's better it gets done
before anybody gets stuck with something else. There are, of course,
some real practical reasons why one name might be better than another.
So, it seems this issue is not as simple as I thought. :(
Opinion seem to be somewhat divided, but in the absence of any sort of
consensus, I suppose I'll have to propose that the various projects use
the vendor field.
The alternative would be to add a configure test that checked the
defaults in the existing host compiler, and duplicated the defaults
somehow, but that sounds somewhat icky.
Andrew
