[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [avr-libc-dev] Suggestion for FAQ entry - LD vs. GCC

From: E. Weddington
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Suggestion for FAQ entry - LD vs. GCC
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:09:30 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)

Please reply to the list, not just to me. Thanks.

Onno Kortmann wrote:

an error occurs:
That's because you're not supposed to do it that way. You're supposed to
link by calling avr-gcc, not avr-ld.
Ok, but where is this documented? IMO, this should be clearly visible.

As I tried to say in my first post, this is rather different from doing a standard linux link. At least I have seen in it in several Makefiles and it works. If doing this violates some standard about linking in linux/unix or for the gcc compiler, please tell me.

I'm not trying to troll here, I just thought that other people, using ld for linking, might run into the same problem very easily.

You're right. For new users it can be terribly exhausting to track down the right way to do things.

IMHO, a FAQ entry is not warranted. It's really to short for this kind of subject.

What is really needed is a whole chapter on how to start a project, that would contain information about:
- The background of the toolset
- How to use the tools, from the basics up
- How to write the skeleton of a basic AVR app
- How to write ISRs and the tradeoffs of various techniques

I'm hoping that when avr-libc moves to a new documentation format (which has been discussed before), then these sections can be written (even if by me). But with the current situation with using Doxygen, it gets frustrating wrt. ordering the documentation.

My 2 cents.

Please see the Makefile that is generated by MFile:
Yes, I think WinAVR has a similar facility built in - thanks for the link ;)

Yes, WinAVR contains MFile, as well as the WinAVR Makefile Template.


reply via email to

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