> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of David Brown > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:09 AM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Question on IO header policy > > I haven't looked at the xml files to see these aliases, but one use I > can think of for aliases is compatibility between AVRs. For > example, an > AVR with one uart would have a status register called UCSRA, > while its > big brother with two uarts would call the same register UCSR0A. This > sort of thing can be an unnecessary pain when converting code > from one > AVR to another.
It's a good use. While I have some influence in what might go into these XML files, doing what you suggest would be retroactively adding this information; not impossible, but this would take some considerable time. I'm more interested in what to do *now* with this bug report. > Other than that, I think most people only ever read the > datasheets, not > the xml files - names that only appear in the xml files are therefore > probably of little use. > Except that in the future, we will be automatically converting the XML file to an IO header file for avr-libc. This makes the XML file just as important. Eric Weddington _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
