Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: gcc's avr implementation does not appear to be interrupt safe!

[Christian Ludlam]

On 19 Jan E. Weddington wrote:

> Paul Schlie wrote:
> 
> >Eric, the reason I posted it to only you two, was that it's likely a
> >sensitive observation; where I thought you might want to have a chance
> >to confirm or correct the observation prior to it being more broadly
> >stated that gcc for avr including winavr is inherently unsafe to use in
> >many circumstances.
> 
> Any information or inquiries about the AVR port of GCC is best when it 
> is publically shared. That way everybody can then help in analysing the 
> information and make any informed decisions, including to help fix any 
> potential problems.

Except possibly where misinformation can cause undue panic amongst users...

In this case, you should notice that functions declared as interrupt handlers
(using SIGNAL() or INTERRUPT() macros) explicitly save and clear R1 in the
prologue, so there's no problem.

-- 
Christian Ludlam
address@hidden