From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Mar 19  1:44:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from vic.sabbo.net (host244.card.com.ua [194.93.175.244])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0362B37B71A
	for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:44:07 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (big_brother.vega.com [192.168.1.1])
	by vic.sabbo.net (8.11.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2J9hDw74951;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:43:13 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <3AB5D49E.3DB82C00@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:42:55 +0200
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: Vega International Capital
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: uk,ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Kapranoff <kapr@acm.org>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Conditionalizing MACHINE_CPU checks
References: <20010319091353.A4146@kapran.bitmcnit.bryansk.su>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Alex Kapranoff wrote:

> Good day to all.
>
> Do I really need to wrap MACHINE_CPU tests (like ${MACHINE_CPU:Mmmx})
> inside ${OSVERSION} >= 500018 tests?
>
> Or is it safe to assume that MACHINE_CPU:Mmmx will just fail on older
> systems and go with it?
>
> E.g. is it ok to do tests in this way:
>
> .if defined(WITH_MMX) || ${MACHINE_CPU:Mmmx}
> SRCS+=  mmx.c
> .elif ${ARCH} == "i386"
>         @${ECHO_MSG} "You can define WITH_MMX to use MMX instructions"
> .endif

No, because ${MACHINE_CPU:Mmmx}will be considered as an invalid conditional if
MACHINE_CPU is undefined.

-Maxim


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message