Hi! On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:30:00 +0100, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote: > Samuel Bronson, le Sat 02 Feb 2013 00:39:29 -0500, a écrit : > > The Hurd people should probably investigate whether a MACH macro is > > actually useful in the first place: Why not __MACH__? Is there > > something which would stop working if MACH were no longer defined? > > Well, this is the same under Linux with the "linux" macro, and "i386", > etc. :) > > But yes, we do consider dropping the MACH macro, we have checked the > Debian source for such macros, it should be fine. Ah, have you checked already? I have not yet (but I saw you gave me the URL with a list, and Debian code search query later on). Though, I won't expect any (major) issues anyway. > I however don't know how far we are on this, anybody? I have already tested and could now check in a patch for GCC upstream; then you can backport that to the active Debian GCC branches? Grüße, Thomas
Attachment:
pgpynPYskaydt.pgp
Description: PGP signature