Thanks- I had gotten some good info from Eduardo.


On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:31:56 -0700 (PWT) 
>  Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> wrote:
> 
>  > Oh. Well- I'm hoping for compiler assist here. This is code that lives in
>  > other than NetBSD. So- my question is still: will NetBSD sparc64's
>  > compiler generate __sparc__ as well as __sparcv9__? Or is this just too
>  > broken for NetBSD and I'll figure out a better way to do this? Perhaps I
>  > should- based upon inclusion of some SBus header file that generate a
>  > define- I mean, it's really an optimization to not have to do the swizzle
>  > check for platforms/instances that can't possibly be SBus instances.
> 
> Um... "I don't know... you could always look at the compiler sources."
> 
> The problem is that if we ever support a non-Sbus embedded SPARC v9 (which
> exist!), then your __sparcv9__ or whatever test for Sbus fails.
> 
> It's not an issue of being "broken" in NetBSD.  We just have a very
> specific way of testing for $MACHINE in kernel builds, which has been
> that way basically forever.
> 
> I've told you how it's done, how other things in our tree do it, etc.  If
> it's really a problem for you, then hey, how about:
> 
> #if defined(__NetBSD__) && (defined(sparc) || defined(sparc64))
> /* Sbus stuff */
> #endif
> 
> "What's the big deal?"
> 
>         -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>
>