[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFD: more avr-libc API changes

From: Erik Christiansen
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFD: more avr-libc API changes
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:26:03 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:52:40PM +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Wojtek Kaniewski wrote:
> > How about...
> >    #define VECTOR(signame) \
> >    void SIG_ ## signame (void) __attribute__ ((interrupt)); \
> >    void SIG_ ## signame (void)
> I don't know.  I'm more inclined to use ISR(), but I'd rather like to
> see other people's opinions on this.

Yes, ISR (UART_DATA) { .... } has the advantage of descriptive accuracy.
Invisible setting of the vector table entry is incidental surely, and
insufficient reason for less than accurately describing the interrupt
handler during definition. It would be a pity to cause another cycle of

> Obtw., of course, it's __attribute__((signal)). :-)

Hmmm ... I might just continue doing 'em in assembler. :-)
It does have the advantage that the ISR name does not magically change
to __vector_N in the ELF file.


reply via email to

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