Re: Alpha test

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Alpha test
Date: 2003-12-23 00:13:43
Message-ID: 28692.1072138423@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> 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

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'm not convinced that all of the changes Bruce made are needed, or even
not likely to break things themselves. What if __alpha and __alpha__
actually indicate slightly different platforms or OS releases? For
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 have handy to test.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-12-23 00:22:29 Re: Alpha test
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-23 00:03:11 Re: Doc patch--clarifying $1 in PL/PgSQL