RE: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #30363] _delay_xx() functions in are broken

[Boyapati, Anitha]

>> I think it can be argued either wise - "round up" or "round down". Both
>have
>> trade-offs. When "round up" is used, the user might end up wondering why
>delay
>> is a little more than what he bargained for.
>
>Round Up might take a cycle or two or more than was  asked for, which
>I doubt would surprise anyone.

So, is it generally ok to give more delay than that is requested? I mean, would 
it not run into same problems as providing less delay run into?


>
>Any amount less than what was  asked for might be a big surprise when
>something goes terribly wrong because the delay was not long enough.
>
>Always go for the operation of "Least Surprise".

Yes, the problem is figuring out which turns out to be least surpring :(

Regards
Anitha

_______________________________________________
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev