Re: [avr-libc-dev] User-visible library version numbers

[E. Weddington]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> As Bob Paddock wrote:
>
>  
>
> > 'releaselevel' sounds better than _PATCHLEVEL_ which implies bugs,
> > and _TINY_ is a bit to vague, since there are TINY AVR parts.
> >    
>
> Well, yes.
>
>  
>
> > > I feel the standardized macro to have a single test for a
> > > particular release to be a big win.
> > >      
>
>  
>
> > Yes to both items, single and three-piece.
> >    
>
> OK, bought.
>
>
> As E. Weddington wrote:
>
>  
>
> > I can't think of a better name than _TINY_. Yes, I agree that
> > patchlevel and releaselevel seem cumbersome.
> >    
>
>
> Hmm, so we've got different opinions on that.  Any other suggestions?
>
> __AVR_LIBC_MICRO__
> __AVR_LIBC_STEP__
> __AVR_LIBC_REVISION__
>
> ?
>
>  
Ok, I can live with step or revision. micro is too close to 
"microcontroller".

>  
>
> > I agree. All in parallel. Do 3 piece macros and then one where
> > they're combined. However, to be consistent with GCC, I vote for the
> > combined name being:
> >    
>
>  
>
> > __AVR_LIBC_VERSION__
> >    
>
> It seems we've got full agreement on that, and __AVR_LIBC_VERSION__ is
> fine by me.  How to call the version string (like "1.4.0") then?
> __AVR_LIBC_VERSION_STRING__?  Accompanied by
> __AVR_LIBC_VERSION_DATE__, which is also a string (like "20050829")?
>
>  
I like *_STRING__, IMO.

Eric