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

[E. Weddington]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> I'm not that happy about `patchlevel' (actually, it's probably rather
> `releaselevel' for us, but as the release number consist of all three
> elements, that would be confusing), that's why I've been searching for
> a different name.  I'm open for better suggestions though.
>  
I can't think of a better name than _TINY_. Yes, I agree that patchlevel 
and releaselevel seem cumbersome.

>  
>
> > Yes.
> >
> > #ifdef __GNUC__
> >
> > #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.
>  
I agree. All in parallel. Do 3 piece macros and then one where they're 
combined. However, to be consistent with GCC, I vote for the combined 
name being:
__AVR_LIBC_VERSION__

Ok?

Eric