Re: [avr-gcc-list] 2 tricky questions

[Marko Panger AGB Lab]

Mostly to Iztok ?! (sorry others)

Plase read excatly what I have written:

"The returning from the interrupt is managed by me. We misunderstood here."

Who said I want return where I entered the interrupt ???

>  If the return from interrupt has to be mingled with, just pop it from
stack
> and push another address there  (Like the old PDP11/RSX11 used to do).

This is excatly what I don't want to do ? Why ? Time, precious time, my
friend !!

Don't worry I know how this AVR works and perhaps many other processors.....

Regards,
Marko Panger



----- Original Message -----
From: "Iztok Zupet" <address@hidden>
To: "Marko Panger AGB Lab" <address@hidden>; "Joerg Wunsch"
<address@hidden>
Cc: "Avr-Gcc List" <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] 2 tricky questions


> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 13:33, Marko Panger AGB Lab wrote:
> > > #define dosomething asm volatile("do something")
>
> I normally use the above trick, like:
> #define high(x) \
>  ({unsigned char t;  asm volatile ("lds %0,  (%1+1)" :"=r"(t) :"m"(x));
t;})
>
> >
> > By the "user point of view" calling an inline function is the same as
> > calling a normal function. The syntax is the same. In fact I was looking
> > for this. What does the compiler is another issue. I wanted the syntax
of a
> > normal function, but implemented as a macro - inline functions.
> >
> > > > The best soultion would be to replace the interrupt pro/epi
> > > > functions with my functions or to call an assembler defined macro.
> > >
> > > By default, they aren't functions but are generated explicitly within
> > > each function.  Are you using -mcall-prologues?  Then you're getting
> > > them as functions.
> >
> > Off course, pro/epi sequences aren't functions. I want to change these
> > sequences (use mine), but only for interrupts, not for normal functions.
> > So, is it possible to do this ?
> >
> > > For normal prologue /functions/, yes, they are really getting their
> > > return addresses pushed onto the stack.  How else is the function
> > > supposed to return to the caller?  You probably don't want a function
> > > for this, but your wording is a bit ambiguous here, sorry.
> >
> > The returning from the interrupt is managed by me. We misunderstood
here.
> >
>
>
> BTW, the PROCESSOR iself pushes the return addres to stack when
interrupted
> not the GCC!!! That's why it's there in a  _naked_ function.
>
>  If the return from interrupt has to be mingled with, just pop it from
stack
> and push another address there  (Like the old PDP11/RSX11 used to do).
>
> Iztok
>