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

[Joerg Wunsch]

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.  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.  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.  I wouldn't want to rush
  such an implementation...

. The implications of changing the calling chain between
  __bad_interrupt and __vector__defaults aren't 100 % clear to me
  right now, without quite a bit of experimenting.

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

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