Re: [avr-libc-dev] Please have a look at avr-libc patch #3750

[Bernard Fouché]

Mudiaga Obada wrote:

> I would rather have this "extra cost" of checking __opts than have
> frustrated users fustrating you developers. So I would not even
> deprecate fdevopen. If this "extra cost" is too expensive for someone
> for whatever reasons, "they" could add a compile time option (configure
> --without-fdevopen || configure --without-fdevopen2 ) that would remove
> support for one or the other.
>  
Backward compatibility is also, in embedded applications at least , a 
matter of size and speed.
If a function is backward-compatible but takes more space or is slower, 
one may prefer the
old one. Also I don't like the idea of spending time and size performing 
unnecessary tests all the
day in applications because of BC confort for the programmer. I prefer 
to have conditionnal
compilation then, and specify what kind of interface I want when 
installing avr-libc.

What about having arguments passed to put/get in such a way that an 
'old' put would pop only
'c' and an uptodate one would pop 'c' & 'stream'? (this will fail with 
-mint8 I suppose..)

This way one will get a warning at compile time if using the old scheme, 
and if one wants a clean
compile then it's time to look at what changed from a version of 
avr-libc to the other.

Bernard