Hi,
Some documentation would be *very* good. That is why we have a manual.
What it says in the manual is still the current recommended way to
build. GCC 3.3.x doesn't really have any advantages. 3.4.x still seems
to have issues. I think GCC 3.2.3 is still the most workable version.
That is the one the documentation describes how to build. The
documentation should be updated in relation to binutils, since you need
the patch binutils to get support for some of the newer devices. Also, I
really should put the latest gdbproxy on the sourceforge site, where the
documentation says you should look. Apart from that, I think the
documentation is still OK.
Steven Johnson wrote:
Some documentation somewhere would be good. We get this question a lot.
Its been a while since I rebuilt the tools, so I dont know the answer
to the question. Once I got a stable version that did what I needed,
I stopped upgarding. Now I wouldnt know which is the 'best' 'most
stable' version anymore either. Having to use the gcc-3.4 directory
to patch gcc-3.3.2 is far from intuitive. What about not only the
readme, but renaming the directories to actually be logical, and not a
historical and confusing accident.
It makes me woder how many people have tried to build the compiler and
given up in disgust, because they had mis matched patches to gcc
source. It might explain why Ive heard from a number of people that
this compiler is unusable crap. which is not true, and I dispute it.
But their response is always 'well i could never get it to work'.
Dont forget, for every one person who posts to the list that they
couldnt get it to work, there are probably 10 others who either arent
subscribed or havent posted their failures to achieve anything
meaningful (probably due to fear of ridicule).
We do get a number of people complaining they have given up trying to
build the tools, while they admit to never having looked at the manual.
:-) Also, far too many people are *trying* to build the software. Lots
of them are using windows. The windows installers are a much better
choice for them, in most cases.
The main reason people seem to think mspgcc might be unusable crap is
the last of a pretty GUI IDE. Far too many people think tools are
useless unless they have the pretty IDE. :-(
Regards,
Steve
Steven
Svein E. Seldal wrote:
Hi,
In the CVS server on sourceforge, there are a lot of different
patches for different versions of gcc.
What is considered the most stable and "best" version of those? I'm
using the CVS's gcc-3.4/ patch against gcc-3.3.2, but I'm always
running into a couple of bugs caused by the compiler.
What's the status of the gcc-current? And what gcc version is it
indended to be patched against? (Tip: Maybe we should add a little
readme in each of the gcc patch directories telling what gcc version
it should be patched against.)
Regards,
Svein Seldal
