As Weddington, Eric wrote: > I question the whole viability of a _delay_ns() function. If someone > wants a resolution that small, then they should be able to do the > calculation and use the __builtin_avr_delay_cycles() builtin > function instead.
But that way, you might as well question the other _delay_*s functions. ;-) They have been created to take off the actual cycle count calculation from the user, to the computer, that's their only purpose. Yes, it's only a few cycles, but the same is true for e.g. _delay_us(12) on a standard AVR running at its default clock of 1 MHz. I don't see a difference here to writing _delay_ns(300) on a modern mega or xmega device running at 20 MHz, and be it only the auto-documentation effect. -- 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
