Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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 see we already do this in solaris.h: >

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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 see we already do this in solaris.h: Mph. Well, at least that's rest

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
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)

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, removed __alpha__ tests from main.c, and documented that they aren't > being used, so we know it is a concious decision. I left the __alpha__ > in s_lock.h because of course that is generic. Fair enough --- I was mostly worried about the NOFIXADE co

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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, especiall

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
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)

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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 > > so you onl

Re: [PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 so you only have to test for one of them? Just an ide

[PATCHES] Alpha test

2003-12-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Seems we have to test for __alpha and __alpha_. This applied patch makes that consistent. -- 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 bac