Anyway, you can find the history behind the different toolchian for the MSP430's, and all that on the 43oh.com forums. From which I've been a member since around January 2013. All the gory details of TI, gcc, and redhat etc and all that.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, William Hermans <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, it replaced both CCS and the old MSP430 GCC, and I think the >> concensus is that it's for the good. There were issues in the >> beginning, but now it's being worked on by both RedHat and TI, and >> nobody recommends the old stuff for use any more. >> >> The usual argument for GCC is that it's relentlessly getting better; >> proprietary alternatives tend to lose their initial advantage because >> GCC contributors have a look at the differences and implement the >> improvements. Look how far Dimitar got it, working on his own. >> > > Well the msp430-gcc-4.6.3 is still the go to to tool chain for many in the > gcc cap for the msp430G2 family MCU's. At least the ones meant to be used > in the MSP430G2 v1.5 launchpad. There are some newer MCU's like the > MSp430G2955 that have more flash and more RAM than the older G2's, end > require the newer compilers. Something to do with memory addressing I > believe, but it's been a long time since I've worried about all that. My > personal favorite MSP430 is the G2553 . . . > > This is also the same compiler that comes with Debian I believe but > perhaps that one was also P.A. Bigot's. The compiler I prefer to use > actually comes with Energia, which also may be a port of P.A. Bigot's > original project? Not sure. > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, William Hermans <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Granted, now, I've read that redhat was contracted to build a newer gcc >> port >> > a few years back, and that this gcc is actually used by CCS now days( >> for >> > the MSP430 toolchain ). It is purported to support the newer MSP430G2 >> > variants, among others, but still is not as reliable as the gcc >> toolchain it >> > was meant to replace. >> >> Well, it replaced both CCS and the old MSP430 GCC, and I think the >> concensus is that it's for the good. There were issues in the >> beginning, but now it's being worked on by both RedHat and TI, and >> nobody recommends the old stuff for use any more. >> >> The usual argument for GCC is that it's relentlessly getting better; >> proprietary alternatives tend to lose their initial advantage because >> GCC contributors have a look at the differences and implement the >> improvements. Look how far Dimitar got it, working on his own. >> >> -- >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAC%3D1GgGH-eijzdkeyj9cL8O9jiGJj2QZ0L%3DqPNRFbH7%2B2R6cuQ%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORruUQG6mib1Yevf98MSedePGGKMSfmxJZUZRXCspwLtRA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
