From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb  1 19:50:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA29016
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 19:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA28983
          Thu, 1 Feb 1996 19:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA25135; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:41:30 +1100
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:41:30 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199602020341.OAA25135@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: andreas@knobel.gun.de, lehey.pad@sni.de
Subject: Re: Another Pentium gcc patch, -D__FreeBSD__=2 -Dbsd4_4
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, pst@cisco.com
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> >   I think that the gcc *should* define bsd4_4 (or similar).  There's
>> >   plenty of software out there which doesn't care which 4.4BSD-derived
>> >   system you're running, and this would help, just like __386bsd__ used
>> >   to be useful.

>Agreed. So I think, too. So could we meet in the middle, that
>we add this definition as long as it doesn't disturb us ?
>I only see the usefullness as __386BSD__...

Both have negative usefulness.  __386BSD__ says that the system is
386BSD, which it isn't.  bsd4_4 may say that the system is BSD.4.4,
which FreeBSD isn't.

Defining __FreeBSD__ in the compiler is almost as bad.  The compiler
has very little to do with the version of FreeBSD that the compiler
runs on.

Defining __FreeBSD__ anywhere is almost as bad...

Bruce