cgd@netbsd.org (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
> > Something like (no guarantee of correctness ;) :
> 
> If people like those names, sure.  ("I suck at names.")
> [ ... ]

Oh, yeah, the other issue i have with these is that in the long run, i
think we'd be better off if the generic MACHINE-independent
MACHINE_ARCH (cpu) support code didn't live in the same exact place as
the MACHINE support code.  (i.e. mips and pmax logically shouldn't
live in the same directory of the source tree.)  as reasonable
alternatives, i could buy cpu/mips and arch/pmax (the least amount of
stuff moves), arch/mips and machine/pmax (more stuff moves, but the
naming's more sensible), or maybe even arch/mips and
arch/mips/machine/pmax (the world is drastically changed, but this may
make even more sense... but then it doesn't distinguish between mipsel
and mipseb MACHINEs)...


But, i don't care as much what things end up being named, i'd rather
they just worked right.  8-)



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.