Re: can't reproduce documented overflow behavior of _delay_ms()

[Georg-Johann Lay]

Joerg Wunsch schrieb:
 > No, obviously, the documentation is wrong, and the delay functions
> clip the delay value at a __builtin_avr_delay_cycles() value of
> UINT_MAX rather than setting it to 0.
>
> However, I just revisited the C standard on this.  All this is simply
> undefined behaviour: the internal calculation is performed with a
> "double" argument type, which is eventually then converted to
> uint32_t, thereby overflowing the uint32_t domain.

hmmm.  So there is more word to do for double support?  We definitely do 
not want double here but float instead...

Johann