Re: __cpu__ defines - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: __cpu__ defines
Date
Msg-id 11204.1063378460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to __cpu__ defines  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: __cpu__ defines
List pgsql-hackers
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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: __cpu__ defines