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
--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):
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As part of my spinlock testing, I noticed that we test for __cpu__ when
using gcc, and __cpu when not using gcc.
...
So, I wonder if we should be testing _just_ for __cpu, perhaps starting
in 7.5.
I might be all wet on this, but I had the idea that the
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As part of my spinlock testing, I noticed that we test for __cpu__ when
using gcc, and __cpu when not using gcc.
...
So, I wonder if we should be testing _just_ for __cpu, perhaps starting
in 7.5.
I might be all wet on this, but
Bruce Momjian writes:
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):
gcc only documents the __foo__ version, so there is a small reason to lean
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
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):
gcc only documents the __foo__ version, so
