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

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Zane D. Purvis wrote:

> How about changing the name to "ISR," which would do the same thing
> as the existing "SIGNAL"?

> Then, SIGNAL and INTERRUPT can both be deprecated (avoiding future
> confusion).

It has been suggested before, but so far, nobody else seemed to
care about that suggestion.

I'm open for it.  I'd probably rather deprecate SIGNAL with a much
lower priority than INTERRUPT, as there's no strong need to force that
change upon virtually every AVR-GCC program around, but I don't mind
such a change.

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)