Re: [avr-libc-dev] Inline assembler and compiler optimization

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Weddington, Eric wrote:

> > I don't think there's a reason to have that as a builtin, when it can
> > be so conveniently had as an inline asm statement.  That's much
> > different from __delay_cycles.

> There is already a precedent.

That doesn't make it better -- in particular not for instructions that
take arguments in registers.

> > Well, it would rather be <avr/nojtag.h> :).  Rather something like
> > <avr/mcufeatures.h> or such.  After all, it's about MCUCR/MCUCSR.
> 
> How about <avr/mcu.h> then? That's fairly short and easy to remember.

That's fine with me.
-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)