[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Fixing fuse definitions

From: Weddington, Eric
Subject: RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Fixing fuse definitions
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:10:48 -0700


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Weddington, Eric
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:52 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Fixing fuse definitions
> Hi All,
> Problem: It seems that some of the new fuse definitions in various IO
> header files conflicts with some bit definitions in the same 
> file. This
> is for avr-libc 1.6.x. There are 2 bug reports about this, and also
> special thanks to Ivan Shmakov for finding out the rest of the name
> conflicts in the IO header files.
> Potential Solution: After talking to Joerg about this, we're proposing
> to change *all* of the fuse definitions in *all* of the IO 
> header files
> (where fuse definitions exist, which is most of them) to add 
> a prefix of
> FUSE_ to the names. Obviously, this breaks any backwards 
> compatibility.
> However, this is for a feature that only *just* released, so it's not
> like there is widespread use of this feature. We feel that adding this
> prefix will group the fuse definitions better, making it 
> easier to spot
> in application code, and also give it's own namespace, so to speak,
> which would remove any potential conflict with bit names. No bit names
> will be changed, as they have been around a long time.
> For users of WinAVR, I have been planning on doing another release in
> February (early to mid) anyway, and these new changes would definitely
> be incorporated in a new avr-libc release by then and included in that
> WinAVR release.
> Are there any overwhelming objections? If not, I will be working on
> fixing this and committing this soon.

Now committed.

Eric Weddington 

reply via email to

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