On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:53, Weddington, Eric wrote: > > Because that bug is completely unimportant and purely cosmetical. > > Real embedded applications don't exit() anyway. Mind you, we (at > > least you and me) have been shipping compiler/library combinations > > where returning from main() didn't jump to or call exit() at all, and > > people barely noticed it. [...]
I agree that bug is unimportant and cosmetical. For me it is no significance is CLI in abort/exit Avr-libc's functions, or is not. But I have a few rationales against to keep GCC busy with CLI: . Yes, the abort() function associates with a rough stop of work. But it is not obvious in case of a normal return from main(). Why and to not finish, for example, transfer of the buffer on RS-232 by interruptions? (I shall specify, that it is onle an idea about natural behaviour.) . The user at an input of main() has received control with the forbidden interruptions and has enabled them himself. Means, it is his duty to restore the I-flag at the return, if it is needed to him. Roughly, we do not demand from the compiler to extinguish all LEDs not extinguished by us! . Reduction of accessible memory even on one word on small MCUs is completely not indifferent. Dmitry. _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
