On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2012-01-14, Sergei Gavrikov<sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com> wrote:
By the way I like their built-in __rtems__ definition for own GCC builds
and I guess in the end we would propagate __ecos__ for own ones on the
occasion of renewal.
Why?
Simply to distinguish the official releases of toolchains (I hope well
tested) and any home-cooked toolchains. I meant such predefined things
for GCC (CPP)
% i386-rtems4.11-gcc -dM -E -</dev/null | grep __rtems__
#define __rtems__ 1
and the same we could have for officially supported releases for ecos,
e.g.
% i386-ecos3.12-gcc -dM -E -</dev/null | grep __ecos__
#define __ecos__ 1
Secondly, it lets anyone to use such checks in sources, e.g.
#if __linux__
# include<endian.h>
#elif __ecos__
# include<machine/endian.h>
#else
...
#endif
For now we usually add '-D__ECOS__' to CFLAGS for some packages.
The third, Why we should avoid to say that eCos is also well known,
widely used OS?