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

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Wojtek Kaniewski wrote:

> What about the SIG_ prefix? If we'll move to something else than
> SIGNAL(), I think that it should be dropped or somehow hidden from
> the users.

Very good point.  I've been thinking about adding a second set of
vector names anyway.  Our names are completely self-invented.  In the
long run, I'd rather like to migrate the names as they appear in the
Atmel XML files, which incidentally also match those IAR is using.

So e.g., SIG_INTERRUPT0 would get an alias named INT0_vect.

Besides of being closer to the datasheet and XML specs, it provides
for a rather easy option to write source code that is portable between
IAR and GCC (as the remainder can be encapsulated in header files, now
that IAR includes the C99 _Pragma() operator).


As Royce Pereira wrote:

> In SDCC (mcs51 open source C compiler) one can name their ISR as
> anything, and then set an attribute to specify it as an ISR for a
> specific source.

> void zerocrossover(void) interrupt EXT0

> Can this be done with AVR-GCC and what would be the problems
> implementing this?

Not easily.  It would require massive changes in both, GCC and
avr-libc, and I don't see any obvious advantage that would justify the
effort required to do this.


As Russell Shaw wrote:

> You could also use INTERRUPT_().

That's too confusing, I'd say.


As Wojtek Kaniewski wrote:

[about AVR generic IO abstraction headers]

> >My only concern is to not pollute the include/avr subdirectory itself
> >too much.

> I'd prefer those functions to be in <util/*> than <avr/generic/*>.

I could live with that.  Eric, does that match your intentions as well?

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

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