Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [predef] Status and review results?
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 05:47:06

On 04/23/2013 05:45 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Petr Machata <pmachata_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> It's intentional. As, AFAIK, PA-RISC is the common name for that
> architecture. And also the macros it's based on for the version information
> are also PA_RISC.

I think he is refering to the RISK versus RISC spelling.

> I can't claim to know much about those.. But is __SYSC_ZARCH__ enough ro
> match any z/Architecture regardless of the s390 defines? If you think those

Not really. __SYSC_ZARCH__ is only defined by the Dignum Systems/C++

>> 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.
> Hm.. Perhaps. Is that a popular understanding of those architectures?

z/Architecture is LP64, and is backwards compatible with System/390
which is ILP32 (well almost, as pointers are only 31-bits wide.) See:

I suggest "System z" as the common name:

>> Also, does it even make sense to add S/370 defines? Can one actually

I don't think so. I am not even sure if you can get a C++ compiler for

>> 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 ;)

24-bits is a System/360 legacy.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at