[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

why is RTEMS_VERSION not set?



Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Am Mit, 2003-02-26 um 18.24 schrieb Till Straumann:
> 
>>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,
> 
> 
> Note: application! 
> 
> Nothing prevents you from composing a string inside of _your_ 
> application.
> 

Guess what: I have the application print its version AND I
have it print the RTEMS_VERSION.

> 
>>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).
> 
> You won't need it if we had numerical version defines 

Sure - it was just a surprise to me that RTEMS_VERSION just disappeared.

FYI:

   powerpc/shared/startup/bspstart.c

and

   cpukit/libcsupport/src/utsname.c

use RTEMS_VERSION also.

> - Compilation
> could complain or fall back to something compatible if using
> incompatible versions.

I'm not (only) concerned with compiling. I have someone out there 
running an application. They come to me and say: hey, there's a crash.
I'd like to be able to ask them: "What does the version string say?"

I'm not saying this is a terrible issue with top priority - I was just
asking why it doesn't work anymore (and part of the automagic seems
to still mention or use and define it). I thought it was broken because 
RTEMS_VERSION is still defined but has no value.

-- Till

> 
> Cf. /usr/include/features.h from glibc on your linux box and __GLIBC__ +
> __GLIBC_MINOR__.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 
>