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: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:52 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] What about to make 'reti' as a 
> default behaviour?
> 
> As Weddington, Eric wrote:
> 
> > > I won't touch the default handler right now.
> > 
> > Why not?
> 
> After some thorough thinking about it, I decided to leave it alone
> right now.  After all, there has to be a reason to eventually roll a
> 1.8 release some day. ;-)
> 
> Random thoughts:
> 
> . Peter Danneggers suggestion to call (rather than jump to) the
>   default handler, and then pop the topmost two (or three for avr6)
>   bytes off the stack has some merit.  

I'm sorry, I must have missed this. Why does this have merit?


> Alas, *only* the default
>   handler can be called, all explicitly specified handlers (aka. ISRs)
>   still have to be jumped to.  Offhand, I don't have a real idea how
>   to accomplish this. 

Umm, yeah. It might get complicated quickly...


> There's a vague idea that it could perhaps be
>   had by using one weak entry point per vector, where the default
>   implementation can place a call into yet the _VECTOR() macro would
>   somehow replace that by a jump.  This, in turn, probably requires a
>   separate linker section for each vector. 

Ugh.