Re: `define __SIMULATOR__

Kevin -
That sort of detection is not what I'm after.

In our simulator, we support some non-standard syntax;
one simulator prefers to install GMIN differently than
all others; some simulators have bugs that I've needed
`ifdef to work around (in an inefficient way that I
didn't want to use everywhere).

That's what I need __SIMULATOR__ for.

-Geoffrey

Kevin Cameron wrote:
>
> It's probably better not to do that at all, and instead define
> capabilities
> or non-capabilities, e.g. if a simulator can handle m-factor it would
> define
> (say) __VAMS_M_FACTOR__, and maybe define the language compliance level
> too (say)
> __VAMS_MAJOR__ and __VAMS_MINOR__ (2 and 1 for the current LRM). An
> implementation
> supporting all 2.1 but only parts of 2.2 would set the language level
> (major/minor)
> at 2/1 and add defines for the extras it does support.
>
> The vendors can define whatever other things they need/want to, but it
> would
> probably be a good idea to maintain a list on the verilog-ams website to
> avoid
> clashes.
>
> Kev.
Received on Tue May 25 11:10:08 2004