Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #38765] avr/iotnx5.h defines USI_OFL_vect not USI_OVERFLOW_vect

[David Goodenough]

Unfortunately savannah will not let me register, keeps complaining that
I should contact its administrator.

Is there any way to complain to Atmel and suggest that a little 
consistancy would be helpful.  Otherwise code just becomes a mess
of #if trees.

As an alternative, as so as not to break existing code, would it not
be possible to define both, i.e. if OVF is defined then define OVERFLOW
to match, and vica verca.

David

On Thursday 18 Apr 2013, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Update of bug #38765 (project avr-libc):
> 
>                   Status:                    None => Wont Fix
>              Assigned to:                    None => joerg_wunsch
>              Open/Closed:                    Open => Closed
> 
>     _______________________________________________________
> 
> Follow-up Comment #1:
> 
> Our policy is to make the interrupt vector names match the
> Atmel XML file, and the datasheet (to whatever is possible
> in terms of a valid C name, e.g. by replacing spaces by
> underscores).
> 
> Since the datasheets and XML files of the various USI-equipped
> AVRs don't agree on each other, our vector names don't either.
> We did invent our own (self-consistent wrt. avr-libc) vector
> names in the past, but this idea eventually turned out to be
> unmaintainable, so as a matter of policy, we switched to
> automatically generating them from the XML files.
> 
> The following devices appear to use OSI_OVF:
> 
> ATtiny87/167, ATtiny*4(A), ATtiny*5, ATtiny26, ATtiny*61(A),
> ATtiny43U
> 
> The following devices appear to use OSI_OVERFLOW:
> 
> ATtiny2313(A), ATtiny4313, ATmega{16,32,64}{5,9}{,0}(PA)
> 
>     _______________________________________________________
> 
> Reply to this item at:
> 
>   <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?38765>
> 
> _______________________________________________
>   Message sent via/by Savannah
>   http://savannah.nongnu.org/