As Weddington, Eric wrote: > > I don't think there's a reason to have that as a builtin, when it can > > be so conveniently had as an inline asm statement. That's much > > different from __delay_cycles.
> There is already a precedent. That doesn't make it better -- in particular not for instructions that take arguments in registers. > > Well, it would rather be <avr/nojtag.h> :). Rather something like > > <avr/mcufeatures.h> or such. After all, it's about MCUCR/MCUCSR. > > How about <avr/mcu.h> then? That's fairly short and easy to remember. That's fine with me. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
