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

[E. Weddington]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> As Wojtek Kaniewski wrote:
>
>  
>
> 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 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?
>
>  

Hello All,

I'm sorry I haven't kept up with the discussion as I should. So here's a 
scattershot of opinions:

- I like Zane's idea of ISR() too. There. Let's implement it! :-) Along 
with deprecating SIGNAL() and INTERRUPT().
- I like isr.h too. Combine interrupt.h and signal.h.
- I like migrating the names to the same as in the AVR Studio XML files. 
It will definitely help in winning over IAR users. ;-)
- I do like the idea that Royce has (above) about naming the ISR 
function any name. However, I agree with Joerg, in that it would take an 
awful lot of effort. Perhaps someday, but not now.
- I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily care for having a further header 
subdirectory such as <avr/generic/*>. I still feel that it would belong 
in <avr/*>. My main argument is <avr/sleep.h> now has so much "cruft" 
because it supports many different processors. There is nothing 
different between what the <avr/sleep.h> header does and what a proposed 
<avr/uart.h> would do, in the sense that they both support many 
different processors, but they are both AVR-specific.

I'm sorry if I've missed any issues. Please correct me if I've missed 
something.

And then, with all the proposed changes, would this warrant a 2.0 release?

Eric