RE: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [bug #21410] Incorrect use of 16-biteepromaddresses in devices with 8-Bit address registers

[Eric Weddington]

> 
> I would much rather have the pain of slightly increased code 
> size and inline eeprom routines to be able to properly 
> support all devices, then doing nothing and letting bit-rot 
> set in. Any objections that would veto such a move?

Another argument for changing the eeprom routines to be inline assembly is
GCC bug #31644:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31644

With Wouter's analysis of this bug (see email of October 12 to
avr-libc-dev), it shows that portions of the EEPROM routines need to be
re-written anyway to play nice with GCC. Might as well fix several problems
at once.

Eric Weddington