[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] SIGNAL or INTERRUPT ?!

From: Russell Shaw
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] SIGNAL or INTERRUPT ?!
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:17:34 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050802 Debian/1.7.10-1

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
Vincent Trouilliez <address@hidden> wrote:

But for the life of me, I can't see anywhere in the rest of the
interrupt section, a single word to explain what the difference
between the two macros is, and their respective purpose/goal.

You can't?

Hmm, just compare the descriptions of both macros.

Anyway, mind the saying: ``If you don't know whether you need to use
SIGNAL or INTERRUPT, for sure, you want SIGNAL.''

Actually, due to the trouble it's causing to the unsuspecting, we
might even drop the INTERRUPT macro completely in a future version.
As we're close to release version 1.4, it's probably a good time to
start deprecating it right now.  The underlying functionality, where
you can have an ISR that has interrupts re-enabled right in the
prologue to minimize the impact on further nested interrupts, will be
retained though, but you'll have to explicitly use __attribute__
((__interrupt__)) then.

In: http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/

under section:  Interrupts and Signals

there is *no* statement of the difference between INTERRUPT and SIGNAL
in the first few paragraphs.

Only when you scan down about 90% do you see the explanation in:

#define INTERRUPT(signame)  and
#define SIGNAL(signame)

The only fix that is needed is to state prominantly in the first few
few paragraphs what the difference is, and all confusion will disappear.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]