> -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Dmitry K. > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:38 PM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: > [avr-libc-commit]avr-libcChangeLoginclude/stdlib.h libc/stdlib... > > 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: >
I believe that there is enough rationale that it is worth doing the change. In discussion with other colleagues, having a default interrupt handler go to abort, and eventually an infinite loop with interrupts disabled is a worthwhile method for detecting this application bug. I think the question is now *where* to do the fix (avr-libc, gcc, which function), and *when* to do the fix (now, or later [gcc 4.3.0, avr-libc 1.8.0]). Considering that I'm in desparate need to get a WinAVR release out now, I would rather put this off to later. But I definitely don't want to forget about this issue. I think that this is an important enough change. Dmitry, would you be willing to add a Task to the Task Tracker on avr-libc for this? Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
