Re: `define __SIMULATOR__

Geoffrey.Coram wrote:

>Kevin -
>I want language a little stronger than "should," and I feel that
>specifying the format makes it a more forceful request of the
>simulator vendors, who have not (as far as I know) implemented
>anything of this sort in current simulators.
>
>
Users can always add macro definitions on the command line if stuck,
and most vendors will be adding the definitions for their own purposes
anyway.

>Also, using the __*__ format seems less likely to collide with
>user-defined macros/tokens.
>
True, but I think it would be good to try and reserve __*__ for LRM
definined macros, so that there are no future clashes.

It might be useful to add something like `error so that you can report
errors during preprocessing for missing definitions (rather than waiting
for the compile proper to fail [or not]).

Kev.

>
>-Geoffrey
>
>
>Kevin Cameron wrote:
>
>
>>I would suggest that you just say the simulator should provide one or
>>more unique predefined macros to identify itself, I don't think it
>>needs to be any special format, but if the LRM is using __*__ for
>>official definitions you might want to exclude those. If vendors have
>>already provided such macros then nobody needs to do any extra work.
>>
>>Kev.
>>
>>

-- 
Kevin Cameron, CPU Technology, CA 94588, Tel.: (925) 225 4862