I do not think there is any need to support other compilers (imho). Too much extra support work and no really compelling reason that I can see. WIth that said, doing some small things to increase compiler portability seems reasonable (for example, macros for packed structures; things like that).
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Sterling Hughes > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think clang support is definitely a requirement going forward. IMO It > would be nice to support IAR and Keil as options, although it would mean > maintaining multiple linker scripts and a portability layer that abstracted: > > - Packed structs > - Inline assembler > - Memory sections > > Not impossible, but hard to do readably. > > What are people’s thoughts? I know Keil and IAR have reasonable usage now, > but are they important compilers to invest time into now to support, or has > their time passed? > > Sterling > > On 6 Jul 2017, at 11:14, Christopher Collins wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:41:12PM +0100, Jonathan Pallant wrote: >>> Hi, I just wanted to jump in here and suggest that -std=c11 is a better >>> choice than -std=gnuXX. If you allow GNU specific extensions then you >>> might have issues using other compilers - certainly I would be surprised >>> to see the project to rule out clang support in the future. I would >>> suggest c11 over c99 as it offers things like atomics which might be >>> useful. >> >> I was under the impression that Mynewt already uses some gnu extensions, >> though I could be wrong about that. Regarding clang- it also supports >> the gnuXX "standards". It would be nice to support other compilers as >> well, but I think that would be quite an uphill battle, and these days, >> I wonder how many people would want to use a toolchain other than gcc or >> clang for Mynewt. >> >> Chris
