Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so indeed it looks like neither 'unix' nor '__unix__' is defined.
> (I imagine a patch to define __unix__ would be acceptable, but we
> are not adding any more predefined symbols that violate the user's
> namespace.)
I'd assume that this would be adde
Martin v. Loewis writes:
>
> To find out what is defined, compile an empty C file with -v -E.
Compiling an empty C file with -E -dM would work better.
I get this from a ->i686-netbsdelf cross compiler:
#define __VERSION__ "3.3 20020913 (experimental)"
#define __ELF__ 1
#define __NetBSD__ 1
#defi
On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 12:25:55AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>
> Assuming that NetBSD maintainers had been using a modified GCC all
> along, it appears that gcc, on NetBSD, had never defined unix (that
> FSF GCC defines it for m68k does not matter - it just means that Jason
> Thorpe hasn't up
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not sure at all why it would define 'unix' on m68k and not i386...
Unfortunately, the gcc public CVS does not answer this question: it
goes back only to 11-Aug-97, at which time m68k/netbsd.h was created
(in the then-egcs CVS); in that version, it reads
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Next stupid question: which standard covers 'unix', so that I can make sure
> > all the pieces are met and that I'm not about to force GCC to tell a lie
> > that will come back to haunt
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Next stupid question: which standard covers 'unix', so that I can make sure
> all the pieces are met and that I'm not about to force GCC to tell a lie
> that will come back to haunt me later...
I'm not sure why NetBSD doesn't define __unix__; it is a good
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:39:29AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Both are ELF systems, and both define the OS standard symbol for their
> > respective OSen. However, what I can't figure out is why the NetBSD config
> > doesn't have -Dunix - it cert
"Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Both are ELF systems, and both define the OS standard symbol for their
> respective OSen. However, what I can't figure out is why the NetBSD config
> doesn't have -Dunix - it certainly seems to support the various files that
> I've seen that used as a tri
After poking at a few packages, I realize that there is a significant
difference in how GCC is configured on the Debian/NetBSD setup. To wit, the
predefines are markedly different, and at least one symbol that I would
think should be there isn't.
Example from a Debian GNU/Linux system (running woo
9 matches
Mail list logo
