Sebastien LELONG wrote:
> Remember the discussion about setting the compiler version in JSG headers ?
> Should we set "Compiler: >=2.4h" or "Compiler: =2.4h" ?
>
> It appears some libraries expect to work only with one specific compiler
> version. For instance, device files expect 2.4i (Compiler: =2.4i). But other
> libraries also expect 2.4h, specifically:
>
> ./external/co2/co2_t6603.jal: Compiler: =2.4h
> ./external/humidity/humidity_sht.jal: Compiler: =2.4h
> ./external/temperature/temperature_tc77.jal: Compiler: =2.4h
> ./peripheral/usart/serial_hw_int_cts.jal: Compiler: =2.4h
>
>
> Does these libs are supposed to work only with 2.4h, and *not* with 2.4i ? I
> guess they should also work with 2.4i, so this Compiler: field should have to
> be updated.
'Does work' is less important than 'has been tested' with a specific
compiler version. Since I test only with the latest compiler version I
have given the latest device files this version indicator (=2.4i), but I
have no problem with an update to >=2.4i.
Because a new compiler version is most likely better than all of its
predecessors I suggest to use the >= indicator. In that case not all
include files need an update of the compiler indicator when the libary
itself has not changed. But in the past there were contra-arguments...
> PS: same for samples:
>
> ./16f877a/sample_co2_t6603.jal:-- Compiler: =2.4h
> ./16f88/serial_hw_int_cts_echo.jal:-- Compiler: =2.4h
> ./16f876a/sample_sht.jal:-- Compiler: =2.4h
> ./16f876a/sample_tc77.jal:-- Compiler: =2.4h
> ./16f876a/sample_t6603.jal:-- Compiler: =2.4h
>
> Blink samples specify: "Compiler: =2.4". That is, not "minor" version
> (g,h,i...). I think they should specify it (same as for device files, to be
> consistent ?)
The blink samples are so simple (and use no libs) that I think these
will run with 'any' minor version of the 2.4 compiler. So omitting the
minor version is not too bad.
> .. this is not a big deal, very few people will look at this field. Except
> maybe when they can't make something work, and read "ok I must use 2.4h,
> because it's specified here". This can be a big deal. Maybe... :)
This encourages to specify the (>=) version with which the library or
sample was last tested (implying that the library did not change since
that compiler version).
Regards, Rob.
--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
