Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #33716] pgmspace typedefs not legal

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Waclawek [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:37 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric; Bill Westfield; Jan Waclawek; Jan Waclawek; Georg-
> Johann Lay; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #33716] pgmspace typedefs not legal
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "safe" in this context, and how could that be
> discovered or shown?
> 
> The user who wants to declare a variable to be positioned in FLASH (code
> memory), and obeys the deprecation warning, is now presumably recommended
> to write the PROGMEM keyword after the type, e.g. unsigned char PROGMEM.
> 
> How exactly could a macro expanding into the same sequence be unsafe?
> 
> 

Good question, which I don't have an immediate answer for. I guess I'm just 
trying to challenge interested parties to think of a way to come up with a 
counter-example where this macro might fail.

If, after some thought, a counter-example can't be found, then it would be 
really helpful if one of you could post a patch to do the change to a macro 
(with the doxygen documentation change too).

A little help with this would be appreciated. :-)

Eric