Re: [boost] [predef] Status and review results?

Subject: Re: [boost] [predef] Status and review results?
From: Petr Machata (pmachata_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-22 11:57:03

Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Just a quick message to mention that I've finished all the review related
> changes to the Predef library.
> [...] browse the current documentation at <http://tinyurl.com/cqqhhev>.

I noticed that HP/PA RISC architecture seems to be tied to macro
BOOST_ARCH_PARISK.  Is that intentional, or a typo?

Regarding System/360 and its descendands.  A defined __s390x__ actually
indicates z/Architecture.  If __s390__ is defined, it could be either
System/390, or a z/Architecture.  FWIW, GCC doesn't seem to define
__SYSC_ZARCH__ for z/Architecture machines.

I always considered the relation betwenn z/Architecture and s390 to be
approximately the same as between i386 and x86_64.  Maybe it would make
sense to have an overarching is-z-system define, similar to
BOOST_ARCH_X86?  No idea what to call it though.

Also, does it even make sense to add S/370 defines?  Can one actually
meet such environment in practice?  I know that ptrace layer in Linux
kernel recently started requiring proper setting of 31bit/24bit
backward-compatible flag, so I don't know... maybe there are people
actually running 24bit systems.  It just somehow seems strange ;)

Last, do you envision adding defines for 64-bit PowerPC?  I don't know
the history here, apparently there's also that RS6000 business that I'm
not familiar with at all, but FWIW, __powerpc64__ is the define on
Linux.  Similarly to above, __powerpc__ would be defined for any
PowerPC, 32- or 64-bit one.

Oh, and I just realized that there's that 64-bit ARM being cooked.
__aarch64__ is the define to check for on Linux.

Thanks,
PM