> > Where the number in the last case is, of course, taken
> > directly from the
> > Atmel vector table in the specification for the respective
> > processor and
> > adjusted as necessary by the compiler.
> >
>
> My only objection is that the number vector correspond to normal
> avr-libc usage and NOT from the Atmel datasheet, where avr-libc usage
> is
> zero-based and one off from the datasheet. I would rather the options
> be:
>
> void __vector_9 (void)
> __attribute__ ((signal,used,externally_visible));
> void __vector_9 (void) {
>
> Or:
>
> void MyTimer0OvfInt(void)
> __attribute__((signal,9,used,externally_visible));
> void MyTimer0OvfInt(void) {
>
> If they are the same number, then it avoids confusion. I know it
> doesn't
> match the datasheet, but we have already established the precedent, and
> I would rather be internally consistent.
>
> Eric Weddington
Ok. I would have thought that makes for confusion, but I guess those using
this method can be assumed to be the cognisenti.
Ron
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
