Home
| Search
| C & C++
| D
| DMDScript
| News Groups
| index
| prev
| next
|
Archives
D Programming
DD.gnu digitalmars.D digitalmars.D.bugs digitalmars.D.dtl digitalmars.D.dwt digitalmars.D.announce digitalmars.D.learn digitalmars.D.debugger C/C++ Programming
c++c++.announce c++.atl c++.beta c++.chat c++.command-line c++.dos c++.dos.16-bits c++.dos.32-bits c++.idde c++.mfc c++.rtl c++.stl c++.stl.hp c++.stl.port c++.stl.sgi c++.stlsoft c++.windows c++.windows.16-bits c++.windows.32-bits c++.wxwindows digitalmars.empire digitalmars.DMDScript |
c++ - Major/minor
Walter
Is there any chance of your adding the following pre-processor symbols to
the compiler:
__DMC_MAJOR__ == e.g. 8
__DMC_MINOR__ == e.g. 32
__DMC_REVISION__ == e.g. 0 for a release, or 1,2 etc. for the beta
(both the numbers being decimal), or
__DMC_VERSION_STRING__ == e.g. "8.32b"
Basically, I'm racking the brain to think of a way to extract and stringise
the required information from __DMC__, and am coming up empty. Obviously
things such as the following do NOT give the desired result
#define __stringize_ccver(x) #x
#define _stringize_ccver(x) __stringize_ccver(x)
#define _dmc_major _stringize_ccver(__DMC__ & 0xf00)
#define _dmc_minor _stringize_ccver(__DMC__ & 0xff)
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++: " _dmc_major " " _dmc_minor)
The reason I ask is that it'd be great if I could constrain the expansion of
the DMC section in the STLSoft root header (stlsoft.h) to the following:
#elif defined(__DMC__)
/* Digital Mars C/C++ */
#define _STLSOFT_COMPILER_IS_DMC
#if (__DMC__ < 0x0826)
#error Only versions 8.26 and later of the Digital Mars C/C++ compilers
are supported by the STLSoft libraries
#elif (__DMC__ >= 0x0832)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ " __DMC_VERSION_STRING__) <<==
WALTER: This would be the cool stuff. :)
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0826)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.26")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0827)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.27")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0828)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.28")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0829)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.29")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0830)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.30")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#elif (__DMC__ == 0x0831)
#ifdef _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE
#pragma message("Digital Mars C/C++ 8.31")
#endif /* _STLSOFT_COMPILE_VERBOSE */
#endif /* __DMC__ */
which would allow me to end the repetition - which is a function of the
in-all-other-respects excellent policy that you have of updating your
compiler in a reasonable timeframe - at 8.32, otherwise it's going to get
real ugly.
I realise it seems a pretty partial request, but hey, I thought I'd give it
a shot!
Matthew
Nov 28 2002
I guess I don't know why it matters. It should, of course, check to see that the version is >= some minimum version, and leave it at that. Why print out which version when compiling? "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:as67ol$sve$1 digitaldaemon.com...Walter Is there any chance of your adding the following pre-processor symbols to the compiler: __DMC_MAJOR__ == e.g. 8 __DMC_MINOR__ == e.g. 32 __DMC_REVISION__ == e.g. 0 for a release, or 1,2 etc. for the beta (both the numbers being decimal), or __DMC_VERSION_STRING__ == e.g. "8.32b" Basically, I'm racking the brain to think of a way to extract and Nov 28 2002
It's just something I've tended to do over the years, mainly for my own purposed, but has been surprisingly popular with my clients, as it can be a simple eye-catcher in build logs. As I said, it's no biggie, but would be useful if it cost you minimal effort. If I had my choice, I would prefer something similar to the GCC way of doing it, i.e. __DMC_MAJOR__ and __DMC_MINOR__. These then make it much easier to write version-discrimination code, and they can be individually stringised when that is required. I probably emphasised the stringising aspect to the requirement more than I should, as the version-discrimination is more valuable. No biggie, anyway. I realise you have _much_ more important things on your plate. Matthew "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:as75ti$23a9$1 digitaldaemon.com...I guess I don't know why it matters. It should, of course, check to see Nov 29 2002
|