Re: __cpu__ defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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 __cpu__ forms
> were considered more standard/common.  In any case, I can't see any
> good reason not to test for both.  The amount of code saved by checking
> only one is negligible; why should we take a chance on breaking things
> for that?

Yes, that what confuses me --- which is standard.  Right now, we aren't
consistent.  My patch tests for __cpu__ on gcc, and both on non-gcc,
which seems safest.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073