alex at alexwaugh.com
Sat Aug 3 07:30:11 PDT 2002
In message <a54832604b.Jo at hobbes.riscos.be>
John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote:
> Good point. I overlooked that. But as the __RISCOSIFY_NO_PROCESS bit
> in __riscosify_control is doing exactly the same, let's merge our idea's :
> maybe we should change __riscosify_control into a weak symbol and when it
> is not defined by the application, take the value 0 (which is already the
> default value now).
> Of course this change in UnixLib means user code change + recompile but
> I think that's not too hard.
It might be a good idea to have an API number available for UnixLib.
This number would be increased every time a non backwards compatible
change was made.
eg. in <unixlib/local.h>
#define __UNIXLIB_API 20020803
Then the user can do things like:
#if __UNIXLIB_API < 20020803
#error "UnixLib version too old"
#if __UNIXLIB_API >= 20020803
int __riscosify_control = ...;
There's already a gccsdk version number, but I dont think that is
easily accessible to user programs.
Alex Waugh alex at alexwaugh.com
PHP, Roots, WebJames and more from http://www.alexwaugh.com/
More information about the gcc