On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ben Ransford <b...@ransford.org> wrote: > On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Kees Schoenmakers <ksli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I found the archives for the newest msp430-gcc on the TI site via >> . >> http://www.ti.com/tool/MSP430-3P-GCC-MSPGCC-TPDE > > The "production" version of GCC for MSP430, which TI announced* on August 18, > lives here: > > http://www.ti.com/tool/msp430-gcc-opensource > > ... whereas the URL you mentioned seems to refer to a beta release. > > I don't know whether the production version fixes the syntax error you saw, > but > perhaps it's worth a try.
TI seems to change the naming conventions of the source releases with each package, which also makes it difficult to figure out what's going on. 2.00.00's msp430-gcc-14r1-10-source.tar.bz2 is bitwise identical to 2.01.01's msp430-gcc-source.tar.bz2. Either there is no difference in the toolchain between 2.00.00 and 2.01.01, or the source archive http://software-dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/latest/exports/msp430-gcc-source.tar.bz2 was not updated. The 2.01.01 headers files in http://software-dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/latest/exports/msp430-support-files.zip are slightly different: USBRAM sections in linker files, cleanup of some RTC defines. Neither situation would fix the issue with the interrupt declaration; I don't know what the problem is there; probably the new toolchain requires a different interrupt declaration syntax than you're using. Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
