Re: [boost] [predef] Status and review results?

On 04/23/2013 05:45 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Petr Machata 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++ compiler.

...

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: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp9110.pdf I suggest "System z" as the common name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System_z

...

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 it.

...

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.