On 03/23/14 08:36 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:45:04PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:33:21PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 03/20/14 05:36 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
Signed-off-by: Thomas Klausner <[email protected]>
---
Imake.cf | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Imake.cf b/Imake.cf
index 2b6c649..9e438e7 100644
--- a/Imake.cf
+++ b/Imake.cf
@@ -238,8 +238,9 @@ XCOMM $XFree86: xc/config/cf/Imake.cf,v 3.88 2003/12/16
21:30:21 herrb Exp $
# ifdef mc68000
# define Mc68020Architecture
# endif
-# ifdef __arm32__
+# if defined(__arm__) || defined(__arm32__)
# define Arm32Architecture
+# undef __arm__
So __arm__ won't be set for 64-bit ARM platforms on NetBSD?
We'll worry about that later :) 64-bit ARM is work-in-progress AFAIK.
I don't think that __arm32__ is set for (some? many?) 32-bit ARM
platforms though.
I've asked to make sure:
__arm__ is the proper test for arm32
__aarch64__ is the one for arm64
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-arm/2014/03/23/msg002305.html
Okay then, not the most obvious convention, but if it's what you use, then go
for it.
Reviewed-by: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]>
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
