Re: [avr-gcc-list] SIGNAL or INTERRUPT ?!

[Russell Shaw]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Vincent Trouilliez <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > But for the life of me, I can't see anywhere in the rest of the
> > interrupt section, a single word to explain what the difference
> > between the two macros is, and their respective purpose/goal.
>
> You can't?
>
> Hmm, just compare the descriptions of both macros.
>
> Anyway, mind the saying: ``If you don't know whether you need to use
> SIGNAL or INTERRUPT, for sure, you want SIGNAL.''
>
> Actually, due to the trouble it's causing to the unsuspecting, we
> might even drop the INTERRUPT macro completely in a future version.
> As we're close to release version 1.4, it's probably a good time to
> start deprecating it right now.  The underlying functionality, where
> you can have an ISR that has interrupts re-enabled right in the
> prologue to minimize the impact on further nested interrupts, will be
> retained though, but you'll have to explicitly use __attribute__
> ((__interrupt__)) then.

In: http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/

under section:  Interrupts and Signals

there is *no* statement of the difference between INTERRUPT and SIGNAL
in the first few paragraphs.

Only when you scan down about 90% do you see the explanation in:

#define INTERRUPT(signame)  and
#define SIGNAL(signame)

The only fix that is needed is to state prominantly in the first few
few paragraphs what the difference is, and all confusion will disappear.