I think it is also a good idea not to eliminate an architecture, but to include the ones that are supported. For instance, it would probably be better to say
#if defined(__arm__) && !defined(__thumb__) && (__ARM_ARCH__ >= 5) if this code is supported on architectures 5 and above. David Turner wrote: > Try to keep the code not depend on Bionic, but you can also > conditionally support it by testing for HAVE_ANDROID_OS > which is defined in all target Android build projects (except the > simulator ones), i.e.: > > #ifdef HAVE_ANDROID_OS > > ... > > #endif > > that's how most of the framework code does its Bionic / no-Bionic > separation. > (i.e. some of the libraries must be built with Bionic and use special > facilities here, while at the same time must be built for the host > using other ones). > > 2009/4/7 Fredrik Markström <fredrik.markst...@gmail.com > <mailto:fredrik.markst...@gmail.com>> > > > What is the general opinion about the code in external (for example > skia, libjpg), can it depend on bionic-specifics like cpu-features.h > or should we try to keep the external stuff independent ? > > The specific question this time is if I'd better off using "#if > !defined(__ARM_ARCH_4T__)" or "#if > defined(__ARM_HAVE_HALFWORD_MULTIPLY)" in external/skia/.../SkMath.h > > /Fredrik > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ unsubscribe: android-porting+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com website: http://groups.google.com/group/android-porting -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
