Re: [avr-gcc-list] avr-libc: interrupt.h, ISR and ISR_NOBLOCK

[Joerg Wunsch]

Georg-Johann Lay <address@hidden> wrote:

> I just don't see a trick how to add "signal" only if NO_INTERRUPT
> is not specified.

Neither do I.

> The compiler could be changed to handle it, of course.
> But I am no fan of trying to support mutually exclusive/contradicting
> things...

I wonder whether we should just keep the old "interrupt" and "signal"
attributes for historical backwards compatibility, and invent new
ones, like:

__attribute__((isr))  -- this function implements an ISR (needs
                         RETI, must guarantee to completely save
                         state)
__attribute__((interruptible)) -- this function is supposed to also
                                  have the "isr" attribute, but it
                                  is asked to re-enable interrupts
                                  as soon as possible

These names would be a lot clearer.  The old "interrupt" attribute
would be equivalent to "isr, interruptible", while the old "signal"
one is the same as "isr" (except "signal" was never supposed to be
accompanied by "interrupt").

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)