On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Pedro J. Lobo wrote:
>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.
>
[stuff deleted...]
>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.
Just a thought: I think we should make a distinction between architecture
(i.e., define 'alpha') and OS (i.e., define 'osf' or something like that),
now that linux runs also on alpha (and NT, if someone ever makes a port).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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