On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> The comment was introduced with... >> >> >> >> commit 528dbf9ebb2688f476ef283be59d0f2232159dcb >> >> "sna: Fix build on older GCC for cpuid()" >> >> >> >> ...and is a bit misleading. >> > >> > The comment was a reminder to me as to whether I needed to check >> > __gnuc_minor__ for 4.4; not duplicating what was already expressed in >> > the code. >> >> >> #if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ >= 4) /* 4.4 */ >> >> I wanted to know what the above line means? >> Check for gcc-4.4 or check for gcc-v4-compatibility? > > Finally, found the information I was looking for - took ages to checkout > gcc.git. cpuid.h was first introduced in gcc-4.4 > > And I'll recant and fixup __cpuid to use __get_cpuid() instead. Thanks for taking a look into gcc sources. Be glad the GNU folk uses Git besides CVS... The subject-line and changelog from binutils/gcc/etc, is still strange to me. Cloning is slow, unfortunately. I keep tarballs of all my cloned local GIT repositories. - Sedat - > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
