[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release
From: |
E. Weddington |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:22:26 -0600 |
On 14 Oct 2002 at 18:15, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> The only open topic was whether it's OK to have no _LPM() (but only
> __LPM()) in the default header, i. e. to require users who want the
> IAR compatibility names to include <avr/ina90.h>.
>
IMHO, users who want an API that belongs to another compiler should
have to include the appropriate header file needed.
But what were the rules regarding 1 and 2 leading underscores? (I
think I missed that).
Thanks,
Eric
- [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/10/11
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, E. Weddington, 2002/10/11
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, E. Weddington, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release,
E. Weddington <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, E. Weddington, 2002/10/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/18
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/10/14
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/14