Re: [avr-libc-dev] User-visible library version numbers

[Bob Paddock]

On Sunday 28 August 2005 02:58 pm, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Bob Paddock wrote:
> > > >. __AVR_LIBC_VERSION__ "1.4.0"  /* a string */
> > > >. __AVR_LIBC_MAJOR__   1        /* three integers */
> > > >. __AVR_LIBC_MINOR__   4
> > > >. __AVR_LIBC_TINY__    0
> >
> > As do I.  GCC refers to _TINY_ as _PATCHLEVEL, see below.
>
> I'm not that happy about `patchlevel' (actually, it's probably rather
> `releaselevel' for us,

'releaselevel' sounds better than _PATCHLEVEL_ which implies bugs, and _TINY_ 
is a bit to vague, since there are TINY AVR parts.

> > #define __GCC_VERSION__ (__GNUC__ * 10000 \
> >                            + __GNUC_MINOR__ * 100 \
> >                            + __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__)
>
> But then, why not offer that as __AVR_LIBC_RELEASE__ right from the
> beginning?

> (Perhaps in parallel with the three-piece macros.) 

> I feel  the standardized macro to have a single test for a particular
> release to be a big win. 

Yes to both items, single and three-piece.