From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-86954-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10740 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 23:27:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10711 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 23:27:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.73.237.138)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 23:27:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 10319 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 23:21:46 -0000
Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83)
  by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 23:21:46 -0000
Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu,  4 Dec 2003 15:27:09 -0800
From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,  Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>,
	  Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com>,  rms@gnu.org,  gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	  binutils@sources.redhat.com,  gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
References: <871xroqlaf.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<87n0aaj4cl.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<87wu9esxu6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<E1ARacX-0004dy-6z@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87ad69rf42.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<E1ARnzC-0007tg-2x@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87y8tsx58e.fsf@codesourcery.com> <8765gwvowl.fsf@wasabisystems.com>
	<87r7zkb6xm.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
	<oriskw2ni1.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20031204151345.A23762@synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:38:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20031204151345.A23762@synopsys.com> (Joe Buck's message of
 "Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:13:45 -0800")
Message-ID: <874qwgp3jm.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:04:38PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10
>> for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still
>> match.  Solaris 10 is more like Solaris 2+ than SunOS 4, which most
>> sunos* matches would get.  At which point, we could probably do
>> without the preference switches.
>
> Agreed; if we are going to make a change, it should preserve "solaris"
> and abandon the "sunos".

I still haven't seen even a weak argument for making any change at
all.  So the canonical system names are inconsistent with Sun's
marketing names; why does anyone even care?

zw