RE: [avr-gcc-list] Avr-gcc Produces Incorrect Code with -Os

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: address@hidden; Weddington, Eric; address@hidden; 
> address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Avr-gcc Produces Incorrect Code with -Os
> 
> You can do it this way but you won't have precise control over 
> disable/restore timing. So you will typically disable 
> interrupts longer 
> than is needed.

If the disable can happen right after prologue and the enable right
before the epilogue then I don't see an issue. Caveat emptor. Maybe I'm
missing something?
 
> Also disabling all interrupts is often not what you need. Disabling 
> specfic interrupts is more palatable on real time systems.

True, but it can't be easily done in the compiler. Disabling all
interrupts is a common enough approach, and while it may not ideal for
every application, I think that having this function attribute would be
a useful tool available to the programmer.


> NMI is a feature not a limitation - it supposed to  stop such 
>  software 
> hanging up the CPU.
> 
> BTW gcc provides atomic operations on other ports.
> 

What kinds of different mechanisms do they provide? Would any of them be
useful for the AVR port?