RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of David Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:01 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
> 
> Weddington, Eric wrote:
> >  
> > 
> No, no - I think you misunderstood my post.  I was responding 
> to Anton's 
> suggestion of using more static inline functions instead of macros by 
> saying that while static inlines have a lot of benefits, sometimes 
> macros are the right choice - and that avrlibc already uses static 
> inlines where it makes sense.
> 

I was giving this some further thought, and static inline functions
wouldn't work for avr-libc. Avr-libc is a library of object modules.
Having static inline functions requires a compilation step. Two things:

- The inline portion wouldn't work because we now have object code, and
the linking stage (AFAIK) doesn't do inlining.
- One big reason to move away from compiling code to macros, is that we
do *not* have a true multi-lib (per device) environment with avr-libc.
We need to be able to have different variants of code for different
devices (not just per architecture). Right now, the only way for us to
do this *is* with macros in a header file.

Eric Weddington