[Mono-devel-list] Re: Mono on AIX [Virus checked]

[Winfried.Harbecke at Extern.Sparkassen-Informatik.de]

> >
> > On 12/02/04 Paolo Molaro <lupus at ximian.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you print the default preprocessor defines that your compiler
> > > defines? We current use __ppc__ and __powerpc__ and it looks it
> > > doesn't define either.
> >
> > You are right, and the native IBM compiler does not define them either.
To
> > be specific,
>
>  The IBM compiler (Visual Age 6) actually defines _POWER
> as the processor specific define. I would assume gcc on AIX
> copies this so shouldn't we use that?

Bernie, your assumption concerning GCC(AIX) is correct. In fact, aix52.h
says

============================================
#undef TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS
#define TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS()      \
  do                                  \
    {                                 \
      builtin_define ("_IBMR2");      \
      builtin_define ("_POWER");      \
      builtin_define ("_LONG_LONG");  \
      builtin_define ("_AIX");        \
      builtin_define ("_AIX32");      \
      builtin_define ("_AIX41");      \
      builtin_define ("_AIX43");      \
      builtin_define ("_AIX51");      \
      builtin_define ("_AIX52");      \
      builtin_assert ("system=unix"); \
      builtin_assert ("system=aix");  \
    }                                 \
  while (0)
============================================

and ealier versions of AIX just cut down correspondingly
on the _AIXxx symbols. There also seems to be very little
danger of a semantic shift for this symbol, since IBM seems
to attach this name to any piece of silicon that implements
the "common" instruction subset. The Visual Age 5
compiler we have on AIX 4.3 here also defines "_POWER".