RE: [avr-libc-dev] What about to make 'reti' as a default behaviour?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:19 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] What about to make 'reti' as a 
> default behaviour?
> 
> As Weddington, Eric wrote:
> 
> > Would it be better to have the default call exit(1)? Does 
> the default
> > implementation of exit go into an infinite loop?
> 
> It does, but I'd prefer calling (or jumping to) abort() instead.  It's
> also an infinite loop by default but it's the intended fault exit
> point.
> 
> I think both, exit() and abort() should disable interrupts before
> running into the loop.  Opinions on that?  If we agree, it would be a
> feature that either has to go into 1.6.0 still, or it will be delayed
> until 1.8.x because it's a non backwards-compatible change.

Agreed on all. Default handler jumps to abort, abort (and exit) disables
interrupts.
I'm ok with it going into 1.6.0, as long as it doesn't materially delay
the release.

Eric