Re: Version number macros

Jerome,

according to the C++ standard (17.4.3.1.2 [lib.global.names]), "certain
sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to the [C++]
implementation":

 - Each name that contains a double underscore (__) or begins with an
   underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to
   the implementation for any use.

So I would prefer to have a macro name like SYSTEMC_IEEE_VERSION, or
SYSTEMC_IEEE_1666. SYSTEMC_VERSION should not be used, since this is
already used in (some) existing implementations.

Thanks,
  Philipp

On 14/09/10 13:17, Jerome CORNET wrote:
> On 9/10/2010 4:07 PM, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>> Jerome,
>>
>> After process control extensions, the next priority on the list is
>> version number macros.
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "Speaking of macros, I don't know if this has been planned, but it
>> would be great (and standard practice) to specify a way to retrieve
>> the version number of the norm that an implementation is following.
>> (In our case that would be either 2005 or 2010 for now).
>> The ISO C standard defines a macro __STDC__VERSION__ whose value is
>> 199901L (integer long) for C99.
>> ISO C++ also defines a macro, __cplusplus with value 199711L."
>>
>> Would you like to make a specific proposal?
>>
> John, All, (sorry for the slight delay)
>
> to me the best way is to follow the other standards' previous decisions
> unless
> we've got strong reasons for changing.
>
> So I would propose a macro (to allow test in #if) like this:
>
> __SYSTEMC_IEEE_VERSION with value 201001L
>
>
> with 2010 be for 1666-2010 and 01 being reserved for minor revisions (as
> it is used for c++).
>
> If someone prefer a variations in the name (__SYSTEM_VERSION or
> whatever), this is obviously
> also ok for us.
>
>
> Jerome
>
>
>

-- 
Philipp A. Hartmann
Hardware/Software Design Methodology Group
OFFIS Institute for Information Technology
R&D Division Transportation · FuE-Bereich Verkehr
Escherweg 2 · 26121 Oldenburg · Germany
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · http://www.offis.de/
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.