RE: [avr-libc-dev] What (Binary) Tags?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:13 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] What (Binary) Tags?
> 
> As Dean wrote:
> 
> > I propose a new macro, either:
> > 
> > =================================================================
> > #define PROGMEM_TAG PROGMEM __attribute__((used, 
> externally_visible))
> > =================================================================
> 
> > Or the what-tag standardised version:
> > 
> > =================================================================
> > #define BINARY_TAG(id, data) ...
> 
> Nice idea!  There are two (minor) things I don't like.  First,
> `binary' sounds misleading to me, as the contents actually are strings
> rather than binary data.  I'd probably call it ID_TAG instead.
> 
> The second thing, @(#) and "what" are remnants of an old and now
> completely obsolete revision control system named SCCS (source code
> control system).  I've got Linux systems that don't have a what(1)
> command at all.  These days, these lines would typically look like
> $Id$ instead (corresponding to the ident(1) command).  For that
> reason, I wouldn't want to hard-code the @(#) magic string but leave
> the setup of the string entirely to the user.
> 
> Once an agreement has been reached in the discussion, please file that
> as a patch tracker item so it won't get lost.  Please add a bit of
> doxygen blurb.  Even if you can't test it, it helps speeding up the
> patch integration later on (which I'm typically doing during release
> preparations).

I agree with Joerg on his comments.

One minor admin thing:
I would prefer that this go in 1.6.1, not in the release that we're
trying to get out now. I would rather that HEAD be frozen except for bug
fixes until 1.6.0 is released.

Thanks,
Eric W.