> -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Sherrill [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:12 PM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] avrtest and simulavr vs simulavrxx > > That makes sense. Once my "magic port" and time limit > changes are committed we will need to create another > dejagnu/boards file. I assume you can run avr-elf gcc tests > easily.
Mmm, somewhat. > I noticed avrtest only supports two avr device names avr51 > and avr6. I assume these are the cores/multilib names. Yes. They are called "architectures" in the port, and they reference features + instruction sets. They are arbitrary names though with no intended relationship to actual core revisions. > How do these map into the simulavrxx devices? > > AT90S4433 > AT90S8515 > ATMEGA128 Btw, you can always reference these in the gas user manual, under "AVR Options", for the -mmcu=<device> flag. atmega128 = avr51 at90s8515 = avr2 at90s4433 = avr2 The atmega128 is pretty much used as the "golden standard" for AVR. The avr6 architecture was added to avrtest by Tristan Gingold. The AT90* devices are older devices. > Do we want "synthethic" CPU models for testing which comprise > the right core and the phony avrtest magic ports? I would rather test to a specific device, than to any kind of architecture type. At this point, I don't think we guarantee that one can correctly compile an AVR application using just the architecture name (e.g. avr6), though in theory it is supposed to work. If you do select an architecture name, you don't pull in any I/O device header file from avr-libc, hence no access to any I/O registers. _______________________________________________ Simulavr-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
