[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFC: Database for device properties.?

From: eweddington
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFC: Database for device properties.?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:39:43 -0600

----- Original Message -----
From: Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden>
Date: Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] RFC: Database for device properties.?

> As Eric Weddington wrote:
> > Atmel distributes a lot of this information in AVR Studio as XML
> > files.
> Unfortunately, we are not allowed to redistribute them.  In theory,
> you are not even allowed to have them at all on a non-Windows machine:
> the only permitted way to redistribute AVR Studio (which they are
> bundled with) is as the entire installation package, and that package
> cannot be run except on native Windows (not even under Wine).  There's
> no option to extract anything out of it besides running the full
> installer. :-(
> This is somewhat braindead.

Yes, we've discussed this part all before....

> If there's someone knowledgable with XSL, it might be an option to use
> XSL stylesheets to extract the required information out of these
> files.  We might have to add local information anyway.

That is what I thought was proposed....
Also, this is why I also recommended something like the "xmlstar" 
project on SF, as it can manipulate XML files with XSL stylesheets all 
from command line tools, i.e. we wouldn't have to write the utilities 
ourselves, we could (in theory) write out the commands necessary for 
the maipulation and throw them in a Makefile.

> > >database ---HEADER_FILE_GENERATOR1---> header file for gcc
> > >database ---HEADER_FILE_GENERATOR2---> header file for binutils
> It would be way cool if GCC and binutils used some kind of external
> file for that information, so we don't have to patch their 
> binaries in
> order to add each new MCU type.  However, I've got no idea whether a
> feature like that one would get accepted by the binutils and GCC
> maintainers.

Completely agreed!

Eric Weddington

reply via email to

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