64-bit windows version?

[Simon Marlow]

skaller wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> 
>> Ok, you clearly have looked at a lot more build systems than I have.  So you 
>> think there's a shift from autoconf-style "figure out the configuration by 
>> running tests" to having a database of configuration settings for various 
>> platforms?  I'm surprised - I thought conventional wisdom was that you should 
>> write your build system to be as independent as possible from the name of the 
>> build platform, so that the system is less sensitive to changes in its 
>> environment, and easier to port.  I can see how wiring-in the parameters can 
>> make the system more concrete, transparent and predictable, and perhaps that 
>> makes it easier to manage.  It's hard to predict whether this would improve our 
>> situation without actually doing it, though - it all comes down to the details.
> 
> This misses the point. The 'suck it and see' idea fails totally for
> cross-compilation. It's a special case.
> 
> The right way to do things is to separate the steps:
> 
> (a) make a configuration
> (b) select a configuration
> 
> logically.

Hmm, I don't see how the approach "fails totally" for cross-compilation.  You 
simply have to create the configuration on the target machine, which is exactly 
what we do when we cross-compile GHC.  Admittedly the process is a bit ad-hoc, 
but it works.

Cheers,
	Simon