Chris Liechti wrote: > also a note about dint(): dint/eint, on purpose, lock/enable the > interrupts one instruction later (thats used for eint; reti, without > filling the stack with reocouring ints, see slau049, NMI/WDT int)
I see why this is the case (you don't want the next interrupt to occur before the stack is cleaned) but I'm not sure where this is needed as the first thing a reti does is pop the status register which restores the state of GIE. It seems to me that eint; reti; doesn't do what you would expect, or am I missing something here? Phil.
