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__ versi
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
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 we
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 th
--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):
__GN
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_
