RE: [avr-gcc-list] RFC: Patch for "signal" argument

[Ron Kreymborg]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy H [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2008 1:26 PM
> To: Ron Kreymborg; AVR-GCC
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] RFC: Patch for "signal" argument
> 
> It's possible to have a target specific compilation flag that turns
> error into warning. Perhaps
> 
> -no-error-but-warn-me-until-i-figure-it-out.
> 
> ..or similar.
> 
> Ron Kreymborg wrote:
> >> Can the "error" have  overide?
> >>
> >> Might that be useful to permit code generation for a new variant
> >> before GCC has caught up with full definitions?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >
> > The ones for the ISR macros were originally warnings, but their
> occurrence
> > invariably meant the jump table was not linked to the interrupt
> function.
> > Ditto with the proposed ISRN macros. But yes, I see your point, and
> warnings
> > would allow the compile to proceed. Perhaps the doco could explain
> what are
> > the consequences when the warning appears and then it is "user
> beware".
> >
> > Ron

Gosh Andy, you're stretching my knowledge of gcc. Anyone else?

Ron