Re: [avr-gcc-list] What Happened to the sbi() and cbi() Macros????

[E. Weddington]

Royce & Sharal Pereira wrote:

> I'm at a very junior level in this discussion, but I feel these macros
> should never have existed.
> |= and &= have always been the standard way. This way one does not have to
> remember so many macros.
>
> Also, I see the compiler is smart enough to optimise this statement, to
> produce different code for SFRs and RAM.
> Probably this was not so in the past, which prompted creation these macros.
>
>  
All of this is correct.

> Of course, one can always create any number of customised macros for oneself
> if need be.
>  
Yup.

> Ned Konz has posted on this list a way to access SFRs as bits, nibbles,
> bytes. This is a really elegant way instead of  _BV(), cbi(), etc. Why cant
> this be made the standard way to access SFR bits? This is a far intuitive
> way than the new macros bit_toggle() etc suggested by Erik Weddington.
>
>  

First of all, it's Eric with a 'c'. Not a 'k', 'ck' or 'ch'. ;-)

Which way did Ned describe? Is it with a bit field? If so, there are 
several portability issues with using bitfields. Also, if you use a bit 
field you cannot operate on non-continguous bits simultaneously such as:
PORTA |= (_BV(0) | _BV(6));

Eric