Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] ATTiny2313 GCC Support? (fwd)

[Bob Paddock]

On Sunday 30 January 2005 08:53 am, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Bob Paddock wrote:
> > "I think it is important to move attiny2313 and attiny13 from avr4
> > to avr2 first (at the same time in avr-libc, binutils and gcc), to
> > fix the recently reported bug (use of unsupported MUL instructions).
> > The fix is sub-optimal (MOVW not used, even though it is available),
> > but we probably can't do any better so close to the GCC 4.0
> > release..."
>
> This has been fixed long since (both in avr-libc, by me, and in GCC
> and binutils, by Marek), but you're right, the patch mentioned by Eric
> doesn't reflect that fix.
 
"E. Weddington"  wrote last Friday on the AVR-GCC list:

">As for the patches at:
>
>http://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/index.php?func=detailitem&item_id=2923#attached
>
>I have no idea if these are relevant at this point.

I just told you that you did need them.

Currently the only *released* project that has support for that device 
is avr-libc. Binutils and GCC do not have any *released* version that 
has support this device.

I would *strongly* suggest that you do not use GCC CVS HEAD for 
development as it is still highly unstable."

I'll conceded that avr-libc-1.2.1 is fixed, but if there is no released
version of GCC/Binutils with the patches applied, and it is not safe to use 
the unreleased version, and the patch set we have posted is broken, where 
does that leave us?  Rod and Victoria are examples of the broken patch set 
escaping into the real world.

Where do I get the patch set for GCC/Binutils that has the 'Tiny' fixed?

-- 
                          http://www.softwaresafety.net/
 http://www.unusualresearch.com/ http://www.bpaddock.com/