As Michael Rice wrote: > If there are no objections, I will change set_system_time( struct tm > *) into set_system_time(time_t)
Your reasoning makes sense. As there's no released version of the time (sub)library in avr-libc yet, we don't have to care much for backwards compatibility, so right now is probably the best time to still change it. > If there are no objections, the above mentioned functions will be > declared with __attribute__((weak)) I don't think that's necessary. Your library is modularized well. As the linker only pulls modules out of the archive that satisfy an unresolved external symbol, modules for things which are already present in the user's application (like time()) simply won't be considered for inclusion from the library at all. > Personally, I feel that if is best left as is, and that second best > is ... > uint8_t month_length( struct tm *); > > I would like to hear from you about your opinion, what works best for > you? It's probably really a matter of opinion. I don't see a need to change it, frankly. -- cheers, Joerg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
