That makes sense and is a good practice. Could you ensure that the source tar files and support files include that version information in the file name? E.g. msp430-gcc-source-2_x_x.tar.bz2 and msp430-gcc-support-2_x_1.zip? Where the prefix "msp430-gcc-" is consistent (don't drop the "gcc" unless the support files are supposed to work with CCS and IAR too); "x" indicates a placeholder dont-care; and assuming that the build number never involves any source changes so should pretty much always be zero and can be dropped from source-only packaging.
It'd also be consistent with best practices if, when those archives were unpacked, the contents appeared in a directory that matched the base name of the tar file, rather than a bare unversioned "source" or "include" directory. This would carry the easy-to-identify information over to the parts of the distribution that currently lack it. Thanks for your consideration. Peter On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Pfeiffer, Markus <m-pfeif...@ti.com> wrote: > The versioning of our package works as follows: > > 1. Digit: GCC Version > 2. Digit: Debug stack version > 3. Digit: Header/linker file version > 4. Digit: Build number > > This basically means that the delta from 2.0.0.0 to 2.1.1.0 is: > - Identical GCC version > - Updated Debug Stack > - Updated header/linker files > > Why did we do this? > We're shipping stand-alone packages & "distributions" that include all of the > above. With the version scheme you instantly see if we just updated support > files OR the debug Stack OR the actual compiler. This will hopefully help you > to determine where you want to update or not. > > Markus > > > Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Haggertystr. 1, D-85356 Freising. > Amtsgericht M?nchen HRB 40960. Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. Wolfram Tietscher. > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Andreas Schwaiger > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Bigot [mailto:big...@acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 5:13 PM > To: Ben Ransford > Cc: Kees Schoenmakers; GCC for MSP430 - http://mspgcc.sf.net > Subject: Re: [Mspgcc-users] msp430-elf-gcc (GCC) 4.9.1 20140707 (prerelease > (msp430-14r1-10)) (GNUPro 14r1) (Based on: GCC 4.8 GDB 7.7 Binutils 2.24 > Newlib 2.1) > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ben Ransford <b...@ransford.org> wrote: >> On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Kees Schoenmakers <ksli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I found the archives for the newest msp430-gcc on the TI site via . >>> http://www.ti.com/tool/MSP430-3P-GCC-MSPGCC-TPDE >> >> The "production" version of GCC for MSP430, which TI announced* on >> August 18, lives here: >> >> http://www.ti.com/tool/msp430-gcc-opensource >> >> ... whereas the URL you mentioned seems to refer to a beta release. >> >> I don't know whether the production version fixes the syntax error you >> saw, but perhaps it's worth a try. > > TI seems to change the naming conventions of the source releases with each > package, which also makes it difficult to figure out what's going on. > 2.00.00's msp430-gcc-14r1-10-source.tar.bz2 is bitwise identical to 2.01.01's > msp430-gcc-source.tar.bz2. Either there is no difference in the toolchain > between 2.00.00 and 2.01.01, or the source archive > http://software-dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/latest/exports/msp430-gcc-source.tar.bz2 > was not updated. > > The 2.01.01 headers files in > http://software-dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/latest/exports/msp430-support-files.zip > are slightly different: USBRAM sections in linker files, cleanup of some RTC > defines. > > Neither situation would fix the issue with the interrupt declaration; I don't > know what the problem is there; probably the new toolchain requires a > different interrupt declaration syntax than you're using. > > Peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. > Predictably reliable. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Mspgcc-users mailing list > Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
