Re: __cpu__ defines

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)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