Re: [avr-gcc-list] FYI: RFC to rename INTERRUPT to something else

[David Brown]

> "David Brown" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Given the importance of the subject of interrupts to all avr-gcc
> > users, perhaps it is worth making it clearer on this list too?
>
> I'd rather keep discussions on one list.  We can always followup with
> a summary here once things are clearer.
>

Fair enough - it's time I joined the other list anyway.

> >>From what I read on the above message, it seems the "INTERRUPT"
> >macro will be depreciated and then removed (presumably the underlying
> >function attrbitute will be unchanged).
>
> (Btw., not depreciated but deprecated.  That's a slight difference.)
>

I had never noticed that, and had always assumed the term was "depreciated",
i.e., the "value" of the feature in question gets reduced until it is
worthless and then removed.  www.dict.org gives the meaning of "deprecated"
as "prayed against, as an evil", which seems much more suitable :-)

mvh.,

David

> Yep, that's the intention.
>
> > This is a good thing, as the INTERRUPT macro
> > does not do what users expect ...
>
> And that's the main reason.
>
> --
> J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support
engineer
> address@hidden
http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/
>
> _______________________________________________
> avr-gcc-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
>