Something wrong with PBP?

[rmteo]

Hi,
All this COULD have been built in, you woudn't know about it and there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with the way PBP handles interrupts. It's just that now we have the OPTION to select the best aproach to interrupt for the particullar application at hand. If you don't care much about code space or latency use ON INTERRUPT, if you want "hard" interrupts but still want to write the interrupt code in PBP use DT-INTS, if you need the absolute best performance use "true" ASM interrupts.

/Henrik.

From the viewpoint of a PIC (or any processor for that matter), an interrupt is an interrupt. It really doesn't know (or care) whether it is an ASM, BASIC, C or Super-Dooper interrupt. As far as the OP's question is concerned, its about how the compiler handles the interrupt request.

[HenrikOlsson]

Right, and since we're talking about the compiler and not the PIC itself what I ment with built in was obviously built into the compiler - not the chip. I thought that was pretty obvious but apparently it wasn't.

/Henrik.