[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Makefile Procyon AVRlib vs AVR-libc and ANSI C

From: Patrick Blanchard
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Makefile Procyon AVRlib vs AVR-libc and ANSI C
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:28:46 -0500

On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 21:10 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> > 3. Why is AVR-libc not ANSI C as far as declarations? This is a
> > confusing issue. Declarations appear to be asm centric, and not ANSI
> > C centric.
> Can you elaborate?  I don't see what you mean.  avr-libc aims to
> implement as much of ISO/IEC 9899:1990 (``ANSI-C'') as makes sense,
> and few things from ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as they fit nicely into the
> scheme (like stdint.h, but unlike wide character support, just to
> mention a couple of examples).

I don't understand why this gentleman feels the need to redefine

pstang's avrlibdef.h...
// datatype definitions macros
typedef unsigned char  u08;
typedef   signed char  s08;
typedef unsigned short u16;
typedef   signed short s16;
typedef unsigned long  u32;
typedef   signed long  s32;
typedef unsigned long long u64;
typedef   signed long long s64;

Or why this gentleman prefers this datatype...

Joerg Wunsch flasher program...
volatile uint16_t pwm; /* Note [1] */
volatile uint8_t direction;

The first example is what I recall reading in K&R.
The second method is confusing, and neither method appears to be declaring the 

eg.. unsigned short == u16 == uint16t ?

thanks for helping here...and putting up with what is probably a very basic 
issue with GCC.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]