On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 05:08:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Nathan Bossart reminded me of this thread after I'd independently > > rediscovered the same thing [1]. I agree with standardizing on > > just one spelling of these CPU-type macros. But I wonder why we > > should invent our own instead of standardizing on gcc's spellings > > (that is, __x86_64__ etc). The amount of code churn required for > > this patch would drop drastically if we did it that way. And I > > suspect it would be less likely that we'd need to fixup future patch > > submissions than if we have a homegrown standard. > > Concretely, I'm imagining that we'd do more or less the attached in > c.h, and then the rest of the work would just be to remove the > not-very-large number of references to the alternative CPU symbols.
Can a pre-processor make it an error for users to define __ macros?
