On 07/21/14 07:06 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
This appears to be defining sparc if ever __sparc or __sparc__ were
defined, which is almost reasonable, but these days we want to be using
the __arch__ style.

Right - I think these were workarounds for ancient compilers before we
got gcc & Sun cc to agree on platform macro naming.


Why any of this would ever be triggered on m68k is
truly a mystery for the ages.

That level of ifdef surrounded the whole platform section, so the m68k
check was more for the following endian settings, than for the sparc
macro chunk.   Note that without this surrounding #if (defined(sun)...)
you end up setting the IMAGE_BYTE_ORDER & BITMAP_BIT_ORDER to MSBFirst
for all platforms that aren't sun386 or sun5.

v2: Fix commit message, as noted by nix

Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <[email protected]>
---
  include/servermd.h | 11 -----------
  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/servermd.h b/include/servermd.h
index 72ce6c0..a544ce5 100644
--- a/include/servermd.h
+++ b/include/servermd.h
@@ -114,16 +114,6 @@ SOFTWARE.

  #endif                          /* __m32r__ */

-#if (defined(sun) && (defined(__sparc) || defined(sparc))) || \
-    (defined(__uxp__) && (defined(sparc) || defined(mc68000))) || \
-    defined(__sparc__) || defined(__mc68000__)
-
-#if defined(__sparc) || defined(__sparc__)
-#if !defined(sparc)
-#define sparc 1
-#endif
-#endif
-
  #if defined(sun386) || defined(sun5)
  #define IMAGE_BYTE_ORDER      LSBFirst        /* Values for the SUN only */
  #define BITMAP_BIT_ORDER      LSBFirst
@@ -131,7 +121,6 @@ SOFTWARE.
  #define IMAGE_BYTE_ORDER      MSBFirst        /* Values for the SUN only */
  #define BITMAP_BIT_ORDER      MSBFirst
  #endif
-#endif                          /* sun && !(i386 && SVR4) */

  #if (defined(mips) || defined(__mips))




--
        -Alan Coopersmith-              [email protected]
         Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to