You'll find the information you need in the compiler's manual: MPLAB C18 C COMPILER USER'S GUIDE.
From page 37 of the user's guide:
MPLAB C18 does not automatically place an ISR at the interrupt vector. Commonly, a GOTO
instruction is placed at the interrupt vector for transferring control to the ISR proper. For example:
void lowPriorityISR(void);
#pragma code low_vector=0x18
void interrupt_at_low_vector(void) {
_asm GOTO lowPriorityISR _endasm
}
#pragma code
#pragma interruptlow lowPriorityISR
void lowPriorityISR() {
}
When implementing a high priority ISR, you cannot use the interrupthigh
pragma as you would expect. You'll have to use the interrupt
pragma instead, as is described here.
If you can change the compiler: using interrupts is easier in the Microchip XC8 or HI-TECH PICC compilers.
There are a couple of issues:
- Not all AVR commands take 1 clock to be executed: if you look at the back of the datasheet, it has the number of clocks it takes for each instruction to be executed. So, for example
AND
is a one-clock instruction, MUL
(multiply) takes two clocks, while LPM
(load program memory) is three, and CALL
is 4. So, with respect to the instruction execution, it really depends on the instruction.
- 5 clocks to jump in and 5 clocks to return can be misleading. If you look at your disassembled code, you will find that in addition to the jump and
RETI
instructions, the compiler adds all sorts of other code, which also takes time. For instance you might need local variables which are created on the stack and must be popped off, etc. The best thing to do to see what's actually going on is to look at the disassembly.
- Lastly, remember that while you are in your ISR routine, your interrupts are not triggering. This means that you will not be able to get the kind of performance you are looking for from your logic analyzer, unless you know that your signal levels change at intervals longer than it takes to service your interrupt. To be clear, once you calculate the time it takes for your ISR to execute, this gives you an upper limit of how quickly you can capture one signal. If you need to capture two signals, then you start runnning into trouble. To be overly detailed about this consider the following scenario:

If x
is the time it takes to service your interrupt, then signal B will never be captured.
If we take your ISR code, stick it into an ISR routine (I used ISR(PCINT0_vect)
) routine, declare all the variables volatile
, and compile for ATmega168P, the disassembled code looks as follows (see @jipple's answer for more info) before we get to the code that "does something"; in orther words the prologue to your ISR is as follows:
37 .loc 1 71 0
38 .cfi_startproc
39 0000 1F92 push r1
40 .LCFI0:
41 .cfi_def_cfa_offset 3
42 .cfi_offset 1, -2
43 0002 0F92 push r0
44 .LCFI1:
45 .cfi_def_cfa_offset 4
46 .cfi_offset 0, -3
47 0004 0FB6 in r0,__SREG__
48 0006 0F92 push r0
49 0008 1124 clr __zero_reg__
50 000a 8F93 push r24
51 .LCFI2:
52 .cfi_def_cfa_offset 5
53 .cfi_offset 24, -4
54 000c 9F93 push r25
55 .LCFI3:
56 .cfi_def_cfa_offset 6
57 .cfi_offset 25, -5
58 /* prologue: Signal */
59 /* frame size = 0 */
60 /* stack size = 5 */
61 .L__stack_usage = 5
so, PUSH
x 5, in
x 1, clr
x 1. Not as bad as jipple's 32-bit vars, but still not nothing.
Some of this is necesary (expand the discussion in the comments). Obviosely, since the ISR routine can occur at any time, it must preseve the registers it uses, unless you know that no code where an interrupt can occur uses the same register as your interrupt routine. For example the following line in the disassembled ISR:
push r24
Is there because everything goes through r24
: your pinc
is loaded there before it goes into memory, etc. So you must have that first. __SREG__
is loaded into r0
and then pushed: if this could go through r24
then you could save yourself a PUSH
Some possible solutions:
- Use a tight polling loop as suggested by Kaz in the comments. This is probably going to be the fastest solution, whether you write the loop in C or assembly.
- Write your ISR in assembly: this way you can optimize the register usage in such a way that the fewest number of them need to be saved during the ISR.
- Declare your ISR routines ISR_NAKED, though this turns out to be more of a red herring solution. When you declare ISR routines
ISR_NAKED
, gcc does not generate prologue/epilogue code, and you are responsible for saving any registers your code modifies, as well as calling reti
(return from an interrupt). Unfortunately, there is no way of using registers in avr-gcc C directly (obviously you can in assembly), however, what you can do is bind variables to specific registers with the register
+ asm
keywords, like this: register uint8_t counter asm("r3");
. If you do that, for the ISR you'll know what registers you are using in the ISR. The problem then is that there is no way to generate push
and pop
to save the used registers without inline assembly (cf. point 1). To ensure having to save fewer registers, you can also bind all the non-ISR variables to specific registers as well, however, no you run into a problem that gcc uses registers for shuffling data to and from memory. This means that unless you look at the disassembly you will not know what registers your main code uses. So if you are considering ISR_NAKED
, you might as well write the ISR in assembly.
Best Answer
If nothing else is running in the MCU, then you are free to take as long as you like in the ISR. But, this is a bad habit to get into, and it means that if you want to do anything else, you'll likely have to rework the code.
A particular case is if the MCU is using a serial library, that expects interrupts to be working often enough to service individual characters received. At 115,200 baud (a high serial speed often used to minimise download time), there is less than 100 µs between characters. If you block the interrupts for longer than that, you risk losing input characters.
As a general rule, do the absolute minimum in an ISR. In your application, a reasonable design would be to have an interrupt every ms, which increments and checks a counter value. I'm sure you can work out some suitable logic to set and test the counter to get 200 ms between turn on and turn off events.