Re: [avr-libc-dev] Progmem types compatibility

[Georg-Johann Lay]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Jan Waclawek wrote:
> 
> I agree that having typedefs for the named address space
> implementation might be a good thing.  They should probably start

I am really not sure. There is no read use of such a type, it's just because
some guys are to lazy to type some letters. Moreover in the case of pointers,
you have the difference between pointers, const pointers, pointers to const and
const pointers to const etc. and all for arbitrary number of types and other
qualifiers like volatile, signed or unsigned.

For the matter of clearness I'd discourage such code obfuscation, there is no
real benefit.

> with flash_ (rather than prog_) then, to clearly indicate they are
> *different*, and need a different usage.

__pgmx semantics will be extended, follow patches to PR49868.