[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: Patches to add mega325-3250-645-6450 to binutils

From: E. Weddington
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: Patches to add mega325-3250-645-6450 to binutils and gcc.
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:57:03 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)

Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:05:39PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:

but I think
I have an idea which I think would be a good compromise (fast build,
and not much disk space needed for installation).

With a small change in LIB_SPEC ("%{mmcu=*:-lavr-%*}" added), GCC
should be able to look for a small per-device library (such as
libavr-atmega128.a) in addition to the generic (per-core) libc.a.
With the correct link order, a per-device library can override
libc.a to provide better optimized device-specific functions.

What a great idea!

What if the library doesn't exist? Would it error? Or just silently continue?

Because if it just silently continues, then one can add the change to LIB_SPEC for all devices, and then if we need them at a later point we could create them later without any errors.

BTW, if we forget backwards compatibility with DOS 8.3, and full device
names (instead of shortened ones) become part of filenames (crtm128.o ->
crt-atmega128.o etc.), GCC spec strings could be simplified a lot, and
there would be one less place to maintain a list of supported devices.

I would heartily agree to this. IIRC WinAVR doesn't work to well on Win95, which is no longer supported by MS anyway. So we're dealing with Win98 and forward, all of which AFAIK have long filename support. We're building GCC for a Windows (MinGW) host, not for DJGPP. So I'm all for dropping 8.3 filename support.

Could you give a little more detail in how/where the spec strings could be simplified?

That's how I would do this if I had the
time these days...

If you don't have much time, have you considered seeing if there can be another AVR maintainer for GCC? You've been the one comitting patches recently. Denis doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot on the port. If Joerg doesn't want to do it (and I don't blame him for not wanting to), there's Bernardo Innocenti and/or Giovanni Bajo; they're both interested in the AVR port and already have Write On Approval.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]