December 24, 2008 12:02 AM
>> To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>>
>>
>> And... Is it a good design of Avr-gcc, when any addition
>> new MCU leads to recompile GCC toolchain (or to install
>> the new WinAVR) instead
; Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
>
> And... Is it a good design of Avr-gcc, when any addition
> new MCU leads to recompile GCC toolchain (or to install
> the new WinAVR) instead to download io header and to add
> a line into a small configuration file?
I agr
From: "Dmitry K."
>
> I have not stood the Anatoliy's patch in details as yet.
> I shall to do it.
>
> In general, there is a question: is it possible to avoid
> any changes in GCC? After all, it has the full set of
> command line switches to point libraries?
>
The patch for the compiler is
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 13:59, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> > I prefer variant avr-libc 2.0 / GCC 4.4. But I assume that
> > Dmitry would object, he prefers not to restrict the GCC
> > version for using with avr-libc.
Yes, thanks :-)
> > In this case, I agree with
> > the option to add the "l
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 02:30, Anatoly Sokolov wrote:
> You consider, it is necessary to add architectures for devices with up to
> 255 max RAM address? Yes, in this case, for this devices it will be
> possible to have more effective functions in avr-libc, but only few such
> devices, and C
> -Original Message-
> From: Anatoly Sokolov [mailto:ae...@post.ru]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:30 PM
> To: Weddington, Eric; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
>
> I prefer variant avr-libc 2.0 / GCC 4.4. But
> From: "Weddington, Eric"
>
>> From: Anatoly Sokolov [mailto:ae...@post.ru]
>>
>> > For a feature this big, do you think that it should be
>> committed to HEAD (future 1.8) only? I think that this
>> feature should be in a new version.
>>
>> The requirement for major version number changes i
- Original Message -
From: "Dmitry K."
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
> On Sunday 21 December 2008 18:03, Anatoly Sokolov wrote:
> [...]
>> It is small advantage, to compile avr-libc with '-mt
> -Original Message-
> From: Anatoly Sokolov [mailto:ae...@post.ru]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:57 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
> Hi.
>
> > For a feature this big,
Hi.
> For a feature this big, do you think that it should be committed to HEAD
> (future 1.8) only? I think that this feature should be in a new version.
The requirement for major version number changes is that the required versions
of gcc and binutils have changed.
Version the avr-libc with
On Sunday 21 December 2008 18:03, Anatoly Sokolov wrote:
[...]
> It is small advantage, to compile avr-libc with '-mtiny-stack'
> optimisation for devices with 8-bit stack pointer. The advantage of this
> optimisation appears only for the "big" functions, at which the size of the
> frame buffer i
@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Dmitry K.
> wrote:
> >
> >> > I against, to build full the avr-libc library for device,
> >> > > this dramatically increase compile time
&
Hi.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Paddock"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Dmitry K. wrote:
>
>> > I against, to build full the avr-libc library for device,
oly Sokolov [mailto:ae...@post.ru]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:58 PM
> To: Weddington, Eric; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
> Sorry.
>
> The patches is attached.
>
> Anatoly.
>
> - Original Message -
> F
; Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Add lib per devide.
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Dmitry K.
> wrote:
>
> > > I against, to build full the avr-libc library for device,
> > > > this dramatically increase compile time
> >
>
> By how much? Second
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Dmitry K. wrote:
> > I against, to build full the avr-libc library for device,
> > > this dramatically increase compile time
>
By how much? Seconds or days?
If each devices is in its own header file, then could precompiled headers be
used?
http://gcc.gnu.org/o
Hi.
>
> Hmm... Yes, this is better in compile time and library
> image size in comparison to pure lib_per_device.
> However, this excludes the possible optimization, for
> example '-mtiny-stack' for ATtiny2313.
It is small advantage, to compile avr-libc with '-mtiny-stack' optimisation
for
> > I against, to build full the avr-libc library for device,
> > this dramatically
> > increase compile time and the code size of avr-libc. Instead,
> > I suggest to
> > build libc for architecture and add small library with device specific
> > functions for eeprom, wdt, boot e.t.c. modules.
Hmm.
Hi Anatoly,
Somehow, I don't see your attachment.
Eric
> -Original Message-
> From:
> avr-libc-dev-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.org
> [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel@nongnu.
> org] On Behalf Of Anatoly Sokolov
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:3
19 matches
Mail list logo
