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

[E. Weddington]

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
etc.

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:
> > <http://www.sax.de/~joerg/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.

Eric