On 1/9/2018 10:59 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
Am 09.01.2018 um 06:12 schrieb Georg Icking-Konert:
hi Philipp,
great to hear that - also the upcoming GDB support! Consequently I will
(have to) modify my templates under
https://github.com/gicking/STM8_templates to use the new headers
instead. Therefore I have some questions:
- when is 3.7.0 scheduled to be released?
- for the meantime: do the headers happen to be same or similar than
the (patched) SPL ones?
- are there any other features, e.g. language changes, I need to
consider?
- are similarly big changes (for the end-user) planned in future
releases? While common headers are great, adapting my projects is a lot
of effort. And I would hate to do that repeatedly...
For a short feedback thanks a lot in advance!
Regards,
Georg
Am 09.01.2018 um 00:07 schrieb Philipp Klaus Krause:
Am 08.01.2018 um 19:58 schrieb Eric Neblock:
Hey everyone,
I was wondering if there was a "missing" header for the stm8.
>From the wiki, I found this site:
http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/STM8SVLDISCOVERY%20LED.shtml
and in the code example, it has things that we'd expect to be in
a header file.
So I don't know if I'm not calling things correctly or if this needs
to go to the devel list or something else.
Let me know and thanks for your time!
Regards,
Eric
Such header files exist as part of ST's STM8 SPL, but due to the unclear
license situation the headers will not be included in SDCC before 3.7.0.
Philipp
Well, I was only referring to the headers in teh SPL, and "the headers
will not be included in SDCC before 3.7.0" doesn't mean we'll have
headers immediately after 3.7.0 either.
The main prpblem is the same as with the pic headers: The unclear
license situation. In both cases a vendor wishes to impose non-free term
upon the headers for their hardware. Changing their mind hasn't worked
so far, an thus is unlikely to work in the short term.
However there is another important question here: Does the vendor have
the right to impsoe license terms on their headers? Are the headers even
copyrightable? Are the register locations just noncopyrightable facts?
I agree completely. There is usually one proper way to write them
in the header. It's just a type of interface. Obvious to all of
us. But those pesky lawyers... they defend, defend, defend. Gee,
let civilization move forward already.
IANAL, but IMO, in many restrictions, the contents of the header files
would be considered non-copyrightable facts. See e.g.:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
After the 3.7.0 release, I'll look into reaching out to entities/places
dedicated to discuss leagal issues related to free software, to get
these questions clarified.
I hope the resolution will allow SDCC to
1) Ship PIC headers as free
2) Include free STM8 headers
Two thumbs up for this. I hope for a positive outcome. Since
Microchip Technology has swallowed Atmel, I hope they don't think
freeing the headers from legal encumbrance will have any negative
commercial impact. They are plenty big now, there is less
competition, and their financials have always looked good.
The industry is used to tight control of their intellectual
property. Perhaps there are people living in the past, still
wanting to control _everything_ tightly. I am reminded of the
1980s, when CPU documents have 'copyrighted' mnemonics, ha ha,
maybe it's finally time to help them shake off this kind of
outdated thinking.
Philipp
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Selangor, Malaysia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
