Am 27.08.2011 20:33, schrieb John Clymer: > I assume I speak for others, but for those of us that have been working > in the embedded field for a while, some of us prefer to roll our own > support code, rather than rely on compiler supplied implementations. > Personnally, I've used 6 different ARM/Thumb2 cored processors in > various projects. I have NEVER used compiler or vendor provided library. > > I prefer NOT to use them because they add overhead, complexity, and are > often times innefficient.
Well, this is not about libraries but startup code and declarations of hardware registers etc. which add no overhead. > > I thought OSS was about freedom of choice. Yes. > Mandating that end users > follow a certain path removes their available choices. If really needed, they can still downstrip an existing cpu unit and work with a customized compiler. This is something a commercial compiler does not allow . > > As far as custom linker maps - if one uses the Generic "controller" and > tells the compiler to compile to object code, but NOT link. Then one > can provide their own linker script - with whatever crazy controller > layout they desire. This can be done with an existing cpu unit as well. After all, the code *must* run on a real device. The bare ram arm and it's memory map just looks random. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
