On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> "Support for...has been added" (also typo: beed -> been)
Hmm, this still seems to be in the latest version? > Is "C code" better? Or C-code? Without the extension, inline assembler > must be used to get correct code, using C like a = b or > pstruct->component will yield wrong code without the extensions if b > or *pstruct is located in flash. Thanks for the background. I really like how you have changed this in the new version of the patch! >> + <li>Support for AVR-specific built-in functions has beed added.</li> >> Which ones? > Must they all be named explicitly? Or is it ok to link to onlinedocs? > I'd prefer a link to the explanation in onlinedocs but I am unsure how > stable the links are as docs evolve over time/versions. If you think it's not beneficial, we don't have to do anything. The links should be rather stable in general (and I am running link checks somewhat regularly). + <li>Support has beed added for the built-in, 24-bit, signed and unsigned + integer types <code>__int24</code> and <code>__uint24</code>.</li> I believe that should be "signed and unsigned 24-bit integer types" (omitting "built-in" should be fine, but in any case without commas). > What does "need no " mean? Nothing at ",etc." all or blank ", etc."? I'd just use a regular space instead of in that case. >> What is ".progmen"? Perhaps paraphrase this briefly? > Not easy without getting into too much technical details... Okay. > Attached an updated patch as there were many changes and so that Eric > and Denis can easier catch up. Looks good! Please fix the one typo, and consider the other comments as well, and go ahead and commit this I'd say. We can always make further changes later. This looks like an impressive release for AVR! Gerald
