[uClibc] Re: binutils-uClibc followup patch

[Carl Miller]

> > Is there any reason not to use the obvious "simple, no patching needed"
> > tuple: i386-uclibc-linux-gnu ?
> 
> Which brings up the question: how about I start using the tuple
>   i386-glibc-linux-gnu
> for crosstool's glibc toolchains, just to be uniform?
> That second field is supposed to be for vendor name, but in the free
> software world, the C library name seems like a good thing to stick there...

I was under the impression that the -gnu fourth field specified C library.
Thus, i386-glibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out glibc twice, and
i386-uclibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out two different C
libraries.  That's why I chose to replace the -gnu suffix.


                             -----Carl