[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h
From: |
Rick Altherr |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:46:39 -0800 |
On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Shaun Jackman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Rick Altherr <address@hidden>
wrote:
If you look at Dmitry's header, you'll see that you pass the address
of eeprom_read_byte or eeprom_write_byte.
How many versions of eeprom_read_byte and eeprom_write_byte are there?
I haven't seen Dmitry's header. Is it in Savannah or on this mailing
list?
Cheers,
Shaun
It was on the mailing list. There are only one of each, but they are
inline functions defined in the header so they will be correct for
every device. The address of that inline function is passed to the
library routines. That will cause a single copy of the inline
function to be generated as a true function in the binary so the
address of it can be found.
--
Rick Altherr
address@hidden
"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split
it with him."
-- Slashdot signature
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, (continued)
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Weddington, Eric, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Rick Altherr, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Rick Altherr, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Shaun Jackman, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Rick Altherr, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Shaun Jackman, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h,
Rick Altherr <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Shaun Jackman, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Rick Altherr, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Shaun Jackman, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Rick Altherr, 2008/02/29
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] New eeprom.h, Shaun Jackman, 2008/02/29