Hello DJ,
Sunday, October 18, 2015, 10:44:10 PM, you wrote:
>> To be honest, your (RedHat + TI) way is worst possible one :-(
> Worst for your purposes, perhaps. We just have a different goal - a
> turnkey custom collection that "just works" for our customers. That
> means we normally
> Agenda VR3 (did you remember this very first Linuix-based PDA with
> MIPS-based CPU?)
Yup, I was involved with the project way back then.
> Could you please clear situation with debugging (in separate thread in
> mailing list)?
Sorry, that's a TI question, they provide the DLLs and SOs for
> To be honest, your (RedHat + TI) way is worst possible one :-(
Worst for your purposes, perhaps. We just have a different goal - a
turnkey custom collection that "just works" for our customers. That
means we normally include things that wouldn't be included in a system
package.
What you
Hello DJ,
Sunday, October 18, 2015, 9:08:34 PM, you wrote:
>> Yep, it works, modulo DESTDIR problems, which could be easily patched.
> We've always used a separate --prefix for each release (typically
> /opt/redhat/msp430-YYMMDD/) so we wouldn't notice.
When it is build for system package
Hello Mspgcc-users,
What is state of debugging support for MSP430 now?
Looks like, Linux "full" gcc package contains gdb_agent_console and
libmsp430.so to support debugging, am I right?
Now, when I built toolchain for FreeBSD (will be added top ports in next
few days), I wonder, is it
> Yep, it works, modulo DESTDIR problems, which could be easily patched.
We've always used a separate --prefix for each release (typically
/opt/redhat/msp430-YYMMDD/) so we wouldn't notice.
> I'm not sure, that toolchain need all these separate tcl and tk
> stuff (system already has them!),
