[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release
From: |
Theodore A. Roth |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:25:32 -0700 (PDT) |
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
:) As Theodore A. Roth wrote:
:)
:) > :) What about my recently posted patch that moves _LPM & Co out of
:) > :) <avr/ina90.h>? Should i commit that?
:) >
:) > I don't see anything wrong with this:
:) >
:) >
http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/pipermail/avr-libc-dev/2002-October/000360.html
:) >
:) > Feel free to commit it.
:)
:) 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>.
If the user is already using _LPM(), they are including <avr/ina90.h> so
they should be fine.
We should add a new section to the docs which documents this and all
incompatible changes from the previous stable release (20020203 in this
case, I think).
Ted Roth
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, (continued)
- 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, 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, 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 <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] dox status and next release, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/10/14