Thomas Munro <[email protected]> writes:
> It looks like they didn't want __riscv32 and __riscv64?
> https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/E8EO-Fd4t3s
Sigh ... another project that is convinced that they're smarter than
everybody else and conforming to common practice is an anti-pattern.
Based on that thread, I'm thinking
...
#elif defined(__riscv)
#if SIZEOF_VOID_P == 8
#define __riscv64__ 1
#else
#define __riscv__ 1
#endif
#elif defined(__s390__)
...
I'd rather rely on our own pointer-size determination than YA
magic compiler-defined symbol.
regards, tom lane
