On 7 Jan Joerg Wunsch wrote: > Also, I tend to not start up yet another header file for these, but would > rather include them into <avr/interrupt.h>. Perhaps we should pick names > that are reserved for the implementation then, to not collide with any > possible (different) version in any existing application -- > <avr/interrupt.h> is likely to be included into almost everything on earth. > So the suggestion is to use _ATOMIC_BLOCK() rather than ATOMIC_BLOCK() etc. > Again, opinions about this?
I'd far prefer a new header file - it keeps all the atomic functions together and it avoids precisely this sort of problem. It is after all a new API (as opposed to an extension of the existing interrupt API). -- Christian Ludlam [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
