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

why is RTEMS_VERSION not set?



Ralf .. is this negatively impacting the string that is _RTEMS_version
in sapi/include/rtems/sptables.h.in.  I think that string is important.

--joel

Till Straumann wrote:
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >