Andreas Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why split SEI and SLEEP in two, if the code only works correctly if
they are adjacent instructions at the machine level?
This is not true.
For many applications, it is simply viable to have interrupts enabled
all the time, and then just execute a SLEEP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Wunsch) wrote:
... commit that part to the avr-libc version. However, I will adopt
the implementation of sleep_enable() and sleep_disable(), as well as
sleep() (renamed to sleep_cpu() or something like that, to avoid the
confusion with the common Posix function
