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

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Bob Paddock wrote:

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

Well, yes.

> > 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.

OK, bought.


As E. Weddington wrote:

> I can't think of a better name than _TINY_. Yes, I agree that
> patchlevel and releaselevel seem cumbersome.


Hmm, so we've got different opinions on that.  Any other suggestions?

__AVR_LIBC_MICRO__
__AVR_LIBC_STEP__
__AVR_LIBC_REVISION__

?


> 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__

It seems we've got full agreement on that, and __AVR_LIBC_VERSION__ is
fine by me.  How to call the version string (like "1.4.0") then?
__AVR_LIBC_VERSION_STRING__?  Accompanied by
__AVR_LIBC_VERSION_DATE__, which is also a string (like "20050829")?

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)