Re: SC_IS_PRERELEASE and TLM_IS_PRERELEASE

John,

On 12/01/11 15:13, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>
> What precisely are you proposing we do instead?

For simplicity, I would propose to just spell 'false' and 'true' in
lower-case. These are valid constant expressions for the C(++)
preprocessor, evaluating to 0 and 1.

A more elaborate definition could use the following:

  The TLM_IS_PRERELEASE flag shall be a controlling constant expression
  (see ISO/IEC14882:2003, 16.1(4)), evaluating to 0 or 1, respectively.

Greetings from Oldenburg,
  Philipp

> From:
> "Philipp A. Hartmann" <philipp.hartmann@offis.de>
> To:
> john.aynsley@doulos.com
> Cc:
> systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
> Date:
> 12/01/2011 01:45
> Subject:
> Re: SC_IS_PRERELEASE and TLM_IS_PRERELEASE
>
>
>
> John, all,
>
> I've checked this again. TRUE and FALSE are neither part of the C nor
> the C++ standard.
>
> They are defined by some platforms (e.g. on Windows), and also
> commonly defined in C applications, but the latter mostly due to the
> lack of proper bool support.
>
> Wrt. to backwards compatibility, I highly doubt that there are
> frequent uses of this, since the current TLM-2 kit is just broken in
> that regard. Try the following on a non-Windows platform:
>
> // ---8<---
> #include <systemc>
> #include <tlm.h>
>
> int sc_main( int, char*[] )
> {
> # if TLM_IS_PRERELEASE == TRUE
> std::cout << "TLM pre-release" << std::endl;
> # endif
>
> # if TLM_IS_PRERELEASE == FALSE
> std::cout << "TLM not a pre-release" << std::endl;
> # endif
> return 0;
> }
> // --->8---
>
> This prints, _both_ lines on my default Linux/GCC 4.4 platform, since
> TRUE and FALSE are undefined. And comparing two undefined symbols is
> quite ? undefined. ;-)
>
> Greetings from Oldenburg,
> Philipp
>
> On 11/01/11 13:37, john.aynsley@doulos.com wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Philipp writes:
>>
>>
>> 9.6.5 SystemC Version
>> 11.8.1 TLM version information
>>
>> SC_IS_PRERELEASE
>> TLM_IS_PRERELEASE
>>
>> "... flag shall be either FALSE or TRUE, not enclosed in quotation
>> marks."
>>
>> Hmmm, maybe 'true' or 'false' (lower-case) would be more portable?
>> Or even an application-defined integral constant expression evaluating
>
>> to 0/1 (or false/true).
>>
>>
>> [JA] I guess FALSE and TRUE are still required for backward
> compatibility
>> in the TLM-2.0 world?
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> John A
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
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 · http://offis.de/en/
Phone/Fax: +49-441-9722-420/282 · PGP: 0x9161A5C0 · Skype: phi.har
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.