On Monday 02 February 2009 00:51, Timo Sandmann wrote:
Am 01.02.2009 um 23:46 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
Users are supposed to download the official releases here:
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases-noredirect/avr-libc/
and use those. Then they don't need to bootstrap.
Well i
Am 02.02.2009 um 14:24 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
Insert the attached patch like this:
other patches
50-binutils-2.19-xmega.patch
51-binutils-2.19-xmega2.patch
52-1-xmega_sup.patch
52-binutils-2.19-atmega32u6.patch
thanks! :-)
Timo
___
: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
On Monday 02 February 2009 13:53, you wrote:
When I applied the xmega-patches to binutils 2.19, the
build-process
failed:
../../binutils-2.19/bfd/elf32-avr.c: In function
'bfd_elf_avr_final_write_processing':
../../binutils
Am 02.02.2009 um 01:28 schrieb Weddington, Eric:
BTW: For me as a user it's even worse to build binutils with all the
patches from winavr, because AFAIK the autoconf / autoheader version
has to be exactly 2.59, not newer.
I can't help that one. That requirement comes from the binutils folks.
On Monday 02 February 2009 13:53, you wrote:
When I applied the xmega-patches to binutils 2.19, the build-process
failed:
../../binutils-2.19/bfd/elf32-avr.c: In function
'bfd_elf_avr_final_write_processing':
../../binutils-2.19/bfd/elf32-avr.c:1331: error: 'bfd_mach_avrxmega1'
Am 02.02.2009 um 09:33 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
I guess you applied the patch 40-avr-libc-1.6.4-fix-attiny13a-
arch.patch? With this patch I need to use bootstrap (because the
patch moves the attiny13a from avr2 to avr25), without it the avr-
libc
builds fine here without bootstrap.
I do. So
Hi.
I'm ok with say that we require some verion = X. Anything X should fail.
Anything = X should be allowed. With X being the lowest version that we
check for.
Test for autoconf min version alredy present in configure.ac:
38: AC_PREREQ(2.57)
Test for automake version can add this way:
-Original Message-
From: Anatoly Sokolov [mailto:ae...@post.ru]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:02 AM
To: Weddington, Eric; Ruud Vlaming
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
Hi.
I'm ok with say that we require
On Sunday 01 February 2009 17:19, you wrote:
I'm ok with say that we require some verion = X. Anything
X should fail. Anything = X should be allowed. With X
being the lowest version that we check for.
Test for autoconf min version alredy present in configure.ac:
38:
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Weddington, Eric; Joerg Wunsch; Anatoly Sokolov
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
(To go one step
] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
(To go one step further, would it not be possible to
intergrate the steps the
bootstrap performs into configure? We are back to the
standard configure/make
procedure which everybody knows. I, for example, never
bootstrapped before
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
Yes, i read why it is needed, and for lib-c
On Sunday 01 February 2009 23:25, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:47 PM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
So i am crazy or is there indeed something that needs
Am 01.02.2009 um 23:46 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
Users are supposed to download the official releases here:
http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases-noredirect/avr-libc/
and use those. Then they don't need to bootstrap.
Well i downloaded that file in my toolchainbuilder, and discovered
it gives
-Original Message-
From: Timo Sandmann [mailto:m...@timosandmann.de]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:51 PM
To: Ruud Vlaming
Cc: Weddington, Eric; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
Am 01.02.2009 um 23:46 schrieb Ruud
On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:28, you wrote:
If you agree with me that a simple version comparison with a
two digit number, emmiting a warning only is sufficient in this
case i can make the patch.
I'm ok with say that we require some verion = X. Anything X
should fail. Anything = X
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:43 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
On Thursday 29 January 2009 17:28, you wrote
On Friday 30 January 2009 18:21, Weddington, Eric wrote:
Here it is. I added some sed hocus-pocus to normalize the version
numbers before comparisson. It is NOT bullit proof, but it handles
one and/or two digit, possibly mixed, version numbers of two and/or
three levels, possibly
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:52 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: Joerg Wunsch; avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org; avr-libc-...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
On Friday 30
On Friday 30 January 2009 19:08, Weddington, Eric wrote:
Since you are an avr-libc developer (with commit privledges)
you need to subscribe to the avr-libc-dev list.
I did, but somewhere in the line it takes time.
Please realize that this kind of approach is highly sensitive
to the way
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org; avr-libc-...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
My eyes glaze over
Yes i realized that when after i submitted the patch. I
tested it on two linux distro's
mac os and cygwin (and they run), but on a third distro it
turns out that the declaration
#! /bin/sh
is not compatible with the function declaration, and should
be changed to
#!/bin/bash
What?!
-Original Message-
From: Preston Wilson [mailto:pwil...@scopuli.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Weddington, Eric; Ruud Vlaming
Cc: avr-gcc-list; avr-libc-...@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] RE: [avr-gcc-list] no
avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
The problem is that Ubuntu (by default) links sh to dash, and almost all
other Linux distributions link sh to bash.
Not that Ubuntu needs anyone to jump in to defend them but ;-)
as an Ubuntu user since day one, I do vividly remember when they
thoughtfully decided, nearly 3 years ago, to
OK, a mass reply as so many articles arrived on that thread.
As Weddington, Eric wrote:
Joerg, how well would this work on FreeBSD? These changes are only
bash-isms AFAIK, but you know more about unix compatibility issues.
Your patch is completely free of any bashism, so it's fine.
Ruud's
: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
However, note that Solaris (alas) doesn't ship with a Posix compliant
/bin/sh by default. The Solaris shell lacks:
. the more esoteric #, ##, %, and %% variable expansion modifiers,
use sed or expr instead, and
. shell
On Thursday 29 January 2009 05:54, you wrote:
Yes, the version checking in the bootstrap script is
quite stupid. Right now it looks for specific versions only.
It would be ideal if we could look for a range.
The question is: is this really needed? Can the
script not simply issue a
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:39 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
On Thursday 29 January 2009 05:54, you wrote
On Jan 29, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Weddington, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ruud Vlaming [mailto:r...@betaresearch.nl]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:39 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of Steven Michalske
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:03 PM
To: avr-gcc List
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 01:19, Timo Sandmann wrote:
Am 26.01.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
config.status: error: cannot find input file: avr/lib/avr25/
attiny13a/Makefile.in
I used the bootstrap-script to let automake generate the missing
Makefile.in.
Hey, i never used that, I
] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 01:25, you wrote:
Oh, of course, I do that too. Thanks for mentioning that.
Things that have been automated have a tendency to be forgotten.
However, that is not always wise, for the bootstrap script seems
to have a flaw i
Hi,
I don't think it was mentioned here yet, so please know that,
when you try to build avr-libc-1.6.4 with the patches,
30-avr-libc-1.6.4-dwarf2.patch
31-avr-libc-1.6.4-builtins.patch
40-avr-libc-1.6.4-fix-attiny13a-arch.patch
applying the last patch results in an error when building
cd
Am 26.01.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
Hi,
I don't think it was mentioned here yet, so please know that,
when you try to build avr-libc-1.6.4 with the patches,
30-avr-libc-1.6.4-dwarf2.patch
31-avr-libc-1.6.4-builtins.patch
40-avr-libc-1.6.4-fix-attiny13a-arch.patch
applying the last
: [avr-gcc-list] no avr/lib/avr25/attiny13a/Makefile.in
Am 26.01.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Ruud Vlaming:
Hi,
I don't think it was mentioned here yet, so please know that,
when you try to build avr-libc-1.6.4 with the patches,
30-avr-libc-1.6.4-dwarf2.patch
31-avr-libc-1.6.4-builtins.patch
36 matches
Mail list logo
