On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Dwayne Bailey wrote:
>Re: your suggestion to use __alpha and not worry about the
>makefile, I'm a little uncomfortable with that. DEC's cc will
>actually output different symbols, depending on the use of the
>- -std flag. I'd rather have something that we have explicit
>control over, rather than relying on the compiler like this. I'm
>not violently opposed to useing __alpha or anything, it's just a
>preference against it.
Here's an extract from the DEC's cc man page:
The following table shows which macros are defined for each of the -std
flags.
-----------------------------------------------
Macro std0 std std1
(default)
-----------------------------------------------
LANGUAGE_C yes no no
__LANGUAGE_C__ yes yes yes
unix yes no no
__unix__ yes yes yes
__osf__ yes yes yes
__alpha yes yes yes
SYSTYPE_BSD yes no no
_SYSTYPE_BSD yes yes yes
LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY yes yes yes
__LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY__ yes yes yes
-----------------------------------------------
As you can see, __alpha and __osf__ are always defined. However, I
understand your point. If we define 'alpha' in the template file, we are
protected from mind-changing vendors that define __alpha in DU 3.2 and
__alpha__ in DU 4.0 and alpha__ in DU 5.0 (just an example). From this
point of view, the current approach is better. And, it's always easier
(and safer) to leave things untouched.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro José Lobo Perea Tel: +34 1 336 78 19
Centro de Cálculo Fax: +34 1 331 92 29
EUIT Telecomunicación - UPM e-mail: pjlobo@euitt.upm.es
