Re: __cpu__ defines

--On Friday, September 12, 2003 09:53:10 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749