From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ulrich Mueller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: configure.in support for FreeBSD ia64/sparc64/powerpc Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:57 +0100 Message-ID: <18827.3445.590924.86451@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <200611032145.kA3Ljj6x078515@kobe.laptop> <87irhv28mx.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20061106141015.GB3755@kobe.laptop> <18763.42713.941380.795066@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <200812191716.mBJHG0oC016436@mothra.ics.uci.edu> <18763.58258.187720.412172@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <87prjo7xla.fsf@kobe.laptop> <18808.21525.878956.953074@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <87y6x23dgj.fsf@kobe.laptop> <878wp2ab5w.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <18826.35104.33516.369804@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <87myd1http.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <200902051420.n15EKgg1004352@rodan.ics.uci.edu> <87d4dwkikl.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <200902051531.n15FVX4F005193@rodan.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233849989 11405 80.91.229.12 (5 Feb 2009 16:06:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , Giorgos Keramidas , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 05 17:07:43 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LV6hw-0006gS-HC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:04:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43358 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6gd-0002WG-Lm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:02:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6g9-0001xS-NH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:02:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6g8-0001wc-Ug for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:02:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43096 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6g8-0001wS-Pn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:02:12 -0500 Original-Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.134.1]:33700) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LV6g8-0000Im-39 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:02:12 -0500 Original-Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.0/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n15G1xIL022475; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:59 +0100 Original-Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.2/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n15G1x5x016549; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:59 +0100 Original-Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n15G1wEE016543; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:01:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200902051531.n15FVX4F005193@rodan.ics.uci.edu> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.9 under Emacs 22.3.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108796 Archived-At: >>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: >> According to the archives, you did not respond to Ulrich's message >> arguing that using flushw is not OS-specific, and that similar code is >> found in other programs: >> >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-12/msg01055.html >> From that message: > But this discussion is moot. Could you please commit the patch with > the test in the form "defined (__sparc64__) && defined (__FreeBSD__)" > at least, so that FreeBSD and Gentoo can get rid of their local patch? Right, I wrote that. But it is taken a bit out of context. From the rest of the message it should be clear that I was much in favour of the solution with the __sparc64__ test only. (Which the Gentoo Sparc team had tested under FreeBSD, under GNU/Linux, and under one Solaris variant.) Whereas the patch with the additional test for FreeBSD was a second choice only, but of course preferred against not applying the patch at all. Ulrich