Accept alternate spellings of __sparcv7 and __sparcv8.

tglsfdc · tglsfdc · commit 1f64ec6fd28b · 2015-08-10T17:34:51.000-04:00
Apparently some versions of gcc prefer __sparc_v7__ and __sparc_v8__.
Per report from Waldemar Brodkorb.
diff --git a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
@@ -384,12 +384,12 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
 :		"=r"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
 :		"r"(lock)
 :		"memory");
-#if defined(__sparcv7)
+#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
 	/*
 	 * No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
 	 * requires a barrier.
 	 */
-#elif defined(__sparcv8)
+#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
 	/* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
 	__asm__ __volatile__ ("stbar	 \n":::"memory");
 #else
@@ -402,13 +402,13 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
 	return (int) _res;
 }
 
-#if defined(__sparcv7)
+#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
 /*
  * No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
  * requires a barrier.  We fall through to the default gcc definition of
  * S_UNLOCK in this case.
  */
-#elif defined(__sparcv8)
+#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
 /* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
 #define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
 do \
