From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13885-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 28614 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 11:03:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 28558 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 11:03:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 11:03:41 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id MAA25344; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:03:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma024930; Thu, 4 Apr 02 12:03:07 +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 MAA15298;
	Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:02:57 +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 MAA11981;
	Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:03:05 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200204041103.MAA11981@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 11:00:31 BST."
             <200204041000.LAA05934@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 03:03:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00106.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.

Hmm, this is getting silly :-)

It turns out that I was more right the first time, than the second.

Some NetBSD platforms (in particular, those that are ELF) do not define 
either "unix" or "__unix__".  So we really do need that test for 
__NetBSD__ there.

R.