Re: [HACKERS] __cpu__ defines

[Larry Rosenman]

--On Friday, September 12, 2003 09:53:10 -0400 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As part of my spinlock testing, I noticed that we test for __cpu__ when
using gcc, and __cpu when not using gcc.  However, I see that my i386
gcc 2.95 defines both (shown using src/tools/ccsym):

        __GNUC__=2
        __GNUC_MINOR__=95
        unix
        __i386__
        i386
        __bsdi__
        bsdi
        __ELF__
        __GAS__=2
        __GAS_MINOR__=10
        __unix__
        __i386__
        __i386__
        __bsdi__
        __bsdi__
        __ELF__
        __GAS__=2
        __GAS_MINOR__=10
        __unix
        __i386
        __bsdi
        system=unix
        system=bsd
        cpu=i386
        machine=i386
        cpu=i386
        machine=i386
        i386
        __i386
        __i386__

So, I wonder if we should be testing _just_ for __cpu, perhaps starting
in 7.5.

I corresponded with Dave Prosser of SCO, and he pointed me at the #assert stuff. That's where the xxx=xxx stuff comes from.

Might it make more sense to use
#if #cpu(i386)
xxx
#endif

instead of depending on the different flavors of #defines.

GCC and at least SCO's cc support this.

I sent the details to Tom, since he seems to be the spinlock maintainer.

LER

--
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature