Re: [avr-gcc-list] FYI: RFC to rename INTERRUPT to something else

[Douglas Dotson]

--- David Brown <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> > "David Brown" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Given the importance of the subject of
> interrupts to all avr-gcc
> > > users, perhaps it is worth making it clearer on
> this list too?
> >
> > I'd rather keep discussions on one list.  We can
> always followup with
> > a summary here once things are clearer.
> >
> 
> Fair enough - it's time I joined the other list
> anyway.

What list is this? I'd like to monitor it as well.
 
> > >>From what I read on the above message, it seems
> the "INTERRUPT"
> > >macro will be depreciated and then removed
> (presumably the underlying
> > >function attrbitute will be unchanged).
> >
> > (Btw., not depreciated but deprecated.  That's a
> slight difference.)
> >
> 
> I had never noticed that, and had always assumed the
> term was "depreciated",
> i.e., the "value" of the feature in question gets
> reduced until it is
> worthless and then removed.  www.dict.org gives the
> meaning of "deprecated"
> as "prayed against, as an evil", which seems much
> more suitable :-)
> 
> mvh.,
> 
> David
> 
> > Yep, that's the intention.
> >
> > > This is a good thing, as the INTERRUPT macro
> > > does not do what users expect ...
> >
> > And that's the main reason.
> >
> > --
> > J"org Wunsch                                      
>     Unix support
> engineer
> > address@hidden
> http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > avr-gcc-list mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> avr-gcc-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
>