From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31782 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 10:00:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31775 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 10:00:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 10:00:40 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id LAA23617; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:00:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma023483; Thu, 4 Apr 02 11:00:32 +0100 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06487; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:00:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05934; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:00:31 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200204041000.LAA05934@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: dne@mayonnaise.net (Daniel =?iso-8859-1?q?N=E9ri?=) cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: RDI on OpenBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:54:06 BST." <200204040954.KAA05176@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:00:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 > /* A temporary sop to older compilers */ > -#if defined (__NetBSD__) || defined (unix) > +#if defined (__unix__) || defined (unix) > # ifndef __unix /* (good for long-term portability?) */ > > This is wrong. NetBSD doesn't define "__unix__" or "unix". Hence the > original test. Ok, forget that. The compiler defines "unix" (and hence, "__unix__"), so that isn't a problem. R.