All this patch does (modulo reformatting) is put SEI in a <code>
environment.
However, looking at this I've got a question: How about "imposing a
function name" which is listed as a difference of <code>noblock</code>
versus others? This (the specific name) is not actually documented
anywhere? Is that an omission, or am I missing something?
Gerald
---
htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
index bfd98496..fe7cf3c1 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
@@ -122,11 +122,11 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
functions defined in a C++ namespace.</li>
<li>Support has been added for the <code>noblock</code> function attribute.
It can be specified together with the <code>signal</code> attribute to
- indicate that the interrupt service routine should start with a SEI
- instruction to globally re-enable interrupts. The difference to the
- <code>interrupt</code> attribute is that the <code>noblock</code>
- attribute just acts like a flag and does not impose a specific function
- name.</li>
+ indicate that the interrupt service routine should start with a
+ <code>SEI</code> instruction to globally re-enable interrupts.
+ The difference to the <code>interrupt</code> attribute is that the
+ <code>noblock</code> attribute just acts like a flag and does not
+ impose a specific function name.</li>
<li>Support has been added for the <code>__builtin_avr_mask1</code>
<a
href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AVR-Built-in-Functions.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005favr_005fmask1";
>built-in function</a>. It can be used to compute some bit masks when
--
2.46.0
