RE: [avr-libc-dev] Question on IO header policy

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of David Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:09 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Question on IO header policy
> 
> I haven't looked at the xml files to see these aliases, but one use I 
> can think of for aliases is compatibility between AVRs.  For 
> example, an 
> AVR with one uart would have a status register called UCSRA, 
> while its 
> big brother with two uarts would call the same register UCSR0A.  This 
> sort of thing can be an unnecessary pain when converting code 
> from one 
> AVR to another.

It's a good use. While I have some influence in what might go into these
XML files, doing what you suggest would be retroactively adding this
information; not impossible, but this would take some considerable time.
I'm more interested in what to do *now* with this bug report.

> Other than that, I think most people only ever read the 
> datasheets, not 
> the xml files - names that only appear in the xml files are therefore 
> probably of little use.
> 

Except that in the future, we will be automatically converting the XML
file to an IO header file for avr-libc. This makes the XML file just as
important.

Eric Weddington