I concur with Joerg on all items below. Eric
> -----Original Message----- > From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org > [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org] On > Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:40 PM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] A few questions > > 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 _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
