[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
why is RTEMS_VERSION not set?
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:24:27 -0800
- From: strauman at SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Till Straumann)
- Subject: why is RTEMS_VERSION not set?
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Am Mit, 2003-02-26 um 16.01 schrieb Valette Eric:
>>Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>As a side note, I think it would be nice to have some
>>>cpp constants like RTEMS_VERSION_MAJOR, RTEMS_VERSION_MINOR or
>>>something that could be tested in conditional code. It has
>>>been disccused a few times over the years but never got to a
>>>concrete proposal that would be useful to applciations.
>>While I do not really care about RTEMS_VERSION, it is sometimes useful
>>for system to provide such information so that specific work around can
>>be developed for a particular version or incompatible API's...
> The problem with the current implementation of RTEMS_VERSION is it being
> a string.
I was actually quite happy with the string version. I am ofter playing
with different versions and I like an application printing the
RTEMS version string. In case I discover a problem with an application,
I have a clear indication what version I (or one of my colleagues)
had it built with (I usually also include a 'build-date' string).
Certainly, having RTEMS_VERSION_MAJOR etc. numbers would not be
a bad idea either.
BTW: knowing the correct version becomes increasingly important
when run-time loading comes into play (something we use heavily
> This prevents it being applicable to comparisons in preprocessor
> conditionals (#if ( RTEMS_VERSION < 4.5 )) and makes it only applicable
> to preprocessor conditional checking for presence of it (#ifdef