Thanks for your input. (Note: Detailed discussion of the mechanics of
reconciling mspgcc/mspgcc4/msp430x is intended to be held on mspgcc-devel.
Please subscribe to that list if you're specifically interested in this
topic.)
Re errata: to whatever extent binutils or mspgcc{3,4} already supports
Von: Peter Bigot
Gesendet am: 30 Dez 1899 00:00:00
Re errata: to whatever extent binutils or mspgcc{3,4} already supports
chip-specific errata I'll have to retain that. To whatever extent I can
come up with a way to add support, I'll do so. But I expect this'll be an
on-demand sort of
People will turn away from a product when it doesn't fit their purpose
now, or in the foreseeable future.
(If I could ever get it built, I might be able to pass judgement.)
Errol Kowald
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 12:42 +0200, JMGross wrote:
Von: Peter Bigot
Gesendet am: 30 Dez 1899 00:00:00
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Peter Bigot
Gesendet am: 10 Aug 2010 01:17:03
What I propose to do instead is reduce the machines to those required
reflect the chip CPU architecture (MSP430, MSP430X, MSP430XV2), and not try
to indicate things like available peripherals and the like
