Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFD: more avr-libc API changes

[Richard Urwin]

On Friday 09 Sep 2005 15:48, Dave Hansen wrote:
> From: Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden>
>
> >As Wojtek Kaniewski wrote:
> > > What about the SIG_ prefix? If we'll move to something else than
> > > SIGNAL(), I think that it should be dropped or somehow hidden
> > > from the users.
> >
> >Very good point.  I've been thinking about adding a second set of
> >vector names anyway.  Our names are completely self-invented.  In
> > the long run, I'd rather like to migrate the names as they appear
> > in the Atmel XML files, which incidentally also match those IAR is
> > using.
> >
> >So e.g., SIG_INTERRUPT0 would get an alias named INT0_vect.
>
> Has anyone put any thought into how we might get avr-gcc to do
> something other than silently generate incorrect code when the user
> specifies an incorrect SIG_* (or *_vect) symbol?  For example, if I
> try to write
>
>    SIGNAL(SIG_INTERUPT0)
>
> avr_gcc will happily accept this, but won't attach the routine to any
> interrupt.  It will appear as if the interrupt never occurs, until
> someone examines the code and realizes it should have been
>
>    SIGNAL(SIG_INTERRUPT0)

Howabout:
#define   VECTOR_INTERRUPT0   SIGNAL(SIG_INTERRUPT0)


-- 
Richard Urwin