Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 06:36:32PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Seems we have to test for __alpha and __alpha_. This applied patch > >> makes that consistent. > > > Won't something like the following work? > > > #ifdef(__alpha) > > #define __alpha__ 1 > > #endif > > It seems risky to me to define macros that are in the > reserved-for-system-use namespace. Who knows what might break in the > system headers if we did that? > > I'm not convinced that all of the changes Bruce made are needed, or even > not likely to break things themselves. What if __alpha and __alpha__ > actually indicate slightly different platforms or OS releases? For > example, we have *no* evidence to suggest that that NOFIXADE stuff in > main.c is needed on platforms that don't define __alpha. I would tend > to take an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach, especially on > platforms we don't have handy to test.
The problem was that certain cases tested for __alpha__ and some __alpha --- same with __sparc. I think I might have gotten started with the these spinlock changes because of an __alpha fix. I also verified with an alpha guy that we need both in most cases, if not all. I remember trying to go with __alpha__ and finding someone couldn't compile alpha after that. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
