RE: [avr-gcc-list] SIGNAL and INTERRUPT overhead

[James A.R. Koehler]

Thanks, guys.  I never did understand that section of the manual but you
and Francisco have cleared it up for me.  That is the wonderful thing
about this list ...

        Jim

On Sat, 2005-20-08 at 22:34 +0100, Nigel Winterbottom wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:James A.R. Koehler
> 
> If the consensus is that we need to be protected against ourselves by
> having all the existing prolog in the two existing interrupt service
> methods, perhaps the solution is to have a third category of interrupt
> service routine in which nothing is pushed onto the stack and the
> programmer takes full responsibility for making sure the machine is
> returned to the same state it was before the interrupt.
> 
>       Jim
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Well Jim,
> 
> Actually this already exists in the form of applying an attribute to the
> SIGNAL or INTERRUPT name. I use it in my code as the example below shows.
> 
> 
> e.g.
> 
> __attribute__ ((naked)) SIGNAL(SIG_ADC)
> {
> //The way bAdcTime is defined causes a SBI instruction to be generated which
> does not affect SREG
> bAdcTime = true;
> __asm__ __volatile__ ("       reti \n" : : );
> }
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AVR-GCC-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
-- 

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty or democracy?  -  Mahatma Gandhi
(1869-1948)