> -----Original Message----- > From: avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org [mailto:avr- > gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Joerg > Wunsch > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:35 PM > To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] avr-libc: interrupt.h, ISR and ISR_NOBLOCK > > Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> 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").
Only if we can deprecate the old names, otherwise we're going to have the GCC maintainers ask us how many attribute names do we need! ;-) Eric _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
