> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:52 PM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] What about to make 'reti' as a > default behaviour? > > As Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > > I won't touch the default handler right now. > > > > Why not? > > After some thorough thinking about it, I decided to leave it alone > right now. After all, there has to be a reason to eventually roll a > 1.8 release some day. ;-) > > Random thoughts: > > . Peter Danneggers suggestion to call (rather than jump to) the > default handler, and then pop the topmost two (or three for avr6) > bytes off the stack has some merit.
I'm sorry, I must have missed this. Why does this have merit? > Alas, *only* the default > handler can be called, all explicitly specified handlers (aka. ISRs) > still have to be jumped to. Offhand, I don't have a real idea how > to accomplish this. Umm, yeah. It might get complicated quickly... > There's a vague idea that it could perhaps be > had by using one weak entry point per vector, where the default > implementation can place a call into yet the _VECTOR() macro would > somehow replace that by a jump. This, in turn, probably requires a > separate linker section for each vector. Ugh. _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
