> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Weddington, Eric > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:52 PM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Fixing fuse definitions > > Hi All, > > Problem: It seems that some of the new fuse definitions in various IO > header files conflicts with some bit definitions in the same > file. This > is for avr-libc 1.6.x. There are 2 bug reports about this, and also > special thanks to Ivan Shmakov for finding out the rest of the name > conflicts in the IO header files. > > Potential Solution: After talking to Joerg about this, we're proposing > to change *all* of the fuse definitions in *all* of the IO > header files > (where fuse definitions exist, which is most of them) to add > a prefix of > FUSE_ to the names. Obviously, this breaks any backwards > compatibility. > However, this is for a feature that only *just* released, so it's not > like there is widespread use of this feature. We feel that adding this > prefix will group the fuse definitions better, making it > easier to spot > in application code, and also give it's own namespace, so to speak, > which would remove any potential conflict with bit names. No bit names > will be changed, as they have been around a long time. > > For users of WinAVR, I have been planning on doing another release in > February (early to mid) anyway, and these new changes would definitely > be incorporated in a new avr-libc release by then and included in that > WinAVR release. > > Are there any overwhelming objections? If not, I will be working on > fixing this and committing this soon.
Now committed. Eric Weddington _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
