Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #36921] util/delay.h uses inline...

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:avr-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Joerg
> Wunsch
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:44 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #36921] util/delay.h uses inline...
> 
> As David Brown wrote:
> 
> > Agreed - though it is possible that some parts might require gcc
> > extensions to C99.  What should be done if gcc extensions are not
> > required, but would allow the generation of better (smaller/faster)
> > code?  One possible situation here is when attributes such as "const" or
> > "pure" would allow better optimisation.
> 
> So far, I don't know of any of the GCC extensions which could not be
> brought in by either escaping them with two underscores, or explicitly
> declaring them being __extension__.  That way, you can still compile
> the code with either -std=c89 -pedantic or -std=c99 -pedantic without
> getting complaints.  After all, we (as "vendor" of a system library)
> are the prime reason for allowing that kind of properly marked
> extensions.
> 

Ok. The above seems reasonable to me.

Sorry for the long discussion over two underscores. ;-)

Eric