Joep Suijs wrote:
> Each file we maintain has the minimal compiler version in it. It takes
> some effort to maintain and has a risk of providing faulty
> information.
> At the time, the compiler version in each file seemed usefull, but I
> now think it is not. We provide a package of files that works on the
> latest stable version of the compiler (which is also provided).
> So I suggest we supply the compiler version on which the files are
> tested and not a minimal version for each file.
>
> How? Well, we could put of course put it in each file (and have the
> buildbot or some other script to check for the right version or even
> maintain it). Or maybe remove each from each source and at some other
> place?
The compiler version in libraries and samples shows (at least it should
show!) the latest compiler version with which these were actually
tested. Not all samples and libraries are re-tested with each new
Jallib release (speaking for myself!). So it still has a function!
I agree that maintaining it requires time and discipline, so where not
useful it should be minimised, but I think it should not be abandoned
altogether.
Anyway I would like to keep the compiler version in the device files,
because there are dependencies. And it is easy to maintain because the
files are regenerated all at once in one run.
Samples and libraries are somewhat less dependent of the compiler
version, so I could live without compiler version number in these.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
