On 3/5/17 3:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 03/05/17 07:28, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 3/5/17 3:09 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 02/05/17 23:30, Chris Johns wrote: >>>> On 2/5/17 6:20 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>>> [...] > >>>> If you want to add this test please extract the version details from >>>> the >>>> build system >>> Can we trust the build system? >>> >> Given the header file with the values it created by the build system yes >> we can. > > I don't think we can trust the build system. The requirement for a > release is that the version macros should have specific values. We > should test that this is the case.
We have to trust the build system for a clean or fresh build and if we cannot not it is a bug. To state otherwise expands the scope of uncertainty and I do not believe we need too. I will state again, doing this breaks the release process. I am sorry but this is just now the release model and supporting configuration control structures exist. > > Maybe we have some time in the future something like this: > > Requirement 2341: There shall be a C pre-processor define > __RTEMS_MAJOR__ available via #include <rtems.h> defined to 123. I doubt this would be in the RTEMS Project's requirements. It might be in a qualification package for the specific qualification effort. How that define it created is for the RTEMS Project to determine. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
