On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Omar Choudary <choudary.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trevor, your idea seems nice, although I would be even more > enthusiastic to put all the patches into the mainstream gcc and then > just do a normal cross-build for the tools.
Yes, ideally this would be the best solution. However, given the fact the patches exist but are still not yet merged into the gcc project I simply assumed getting these patches accepted by the gcc maintainers is not trivial. If you wanted to work with the latest and greatest Linux ARM kernel you wouldn't expect to find that on kernel.org. The same thing goes for the latest uClinux kernel, the latest MIPS kernel, PowerPC, etc... The kernel you find on kernel.org is the latest and greatest x86(_64) kernel; with respects to all other platforms it lags behind and simply collects known-to-be-working patches from the other platform specific sites well after they exist and have been tested elsewhere. I just naturally assumed the same process was at work with respect to gcc and its support of non-x86(_64) platforms. Is this not a valid assumption? If this is a valid assumption then the best support for avr will always exist somewhere else other than in the gcc project and would ideally be maintained as a patch which tracks the latest stable gcc release. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
