avr-libc-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [avr-libc-dev] avr-libc 1.6.8 [was: duplicating avr-libc from winavr


From: Joerg Wunsch
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] avr-libc 1.6.8 [was: duplicating avr-libc from winavr]
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:03:45 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

As Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> OK, try again, please.  *blush*  I accidentally tagged against
> my local mirror rather than savannah...

Alternatively, use avr-libc 1.6.8.

I just decided to roll a new release.  Originally, my intention was to
fix some of the more critical bugs before doing that, but I realize I
currently don't have the time to do it right.  As Eric recently
released WinAVR without an avr-libc release (sorry for that), and as
my FreeBSD port was also already breaking into pieces due to the
doxygen issue (a doxygen-generated filename changed), I decided to
just roll a release from the 1.6 branch "as-is".

There are just two differences to Eric's WinAVR version.  One is the
doxygen-related bugfix that doesn't affect end users at all, only
those who are building the documentation using the latest doxygen
version (i.e., typically those who roll a binary distribution).

The other one is a bugfix that rewrote clock_prescale_set() as an
inlined function rather than being a macro.  The macro version
stumbled upon some USB code that (stupidly) added parentheses on the
right-hand side of a macro around clock_prescale_set().

So Galen, if you can live with these two differences to
WinAVR-20100110, you might as well use 1.6.8 instead.

I suggest that we close the 1.6 branch with this release.  Eric
already mentioned before that maintaining both, a CVS head version and
a 1.6 branch that is essentially identical to the CVS head has proven
to be quite cumbersome during the last years.  It generates just more
work without any real benefit.  I cannot remember any important commit
within recent years that went into head but not also by the same time
into the branch.

Therefore, I'd propose our next release will be 1.7.1 (as 1.7.0 has
been in use for the development branch for quite some time now).

If anyone has serious objections against this, please speak up now.
-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

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




reply via email to

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