Hi Allan,
Answers are interleaved below.
-----Original Message----- From:
address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden org]
On Behalf Of Allan Macdonald Sent: Saturday, February 28,
2009 8:44 AM To: address@hidden Subject: [avr-libc-dev]
newbie question - attiny88 on Ubuntu
crc.c:1: error: MCU 'attiny88' supported for assembler only
I am a little confused as to why this happens on Linux and not in
WinAVR.
You will typically get this message if support for that device is
missing in your toolchain build.
The version of avr-gcc installed on my machine is 4.2.2. This is
the version that was available in the repositories that are offered
by default. I got it by going into my Synaptic Package Manager,
finding all the avr-related packages such as gcc, gdb, avrdude, etc,
and installing them.
I don't know what to do or who to ask to fix this. My apologies
if this is the wrong list in which to be asking these questions.
If there is a better list or forum to post this, please let me
know.
Questions:
- What would be the easiest way for me to fix this?
Unfortunately, the easiest way depends on your skill level.
- Should I download and build the latest tarball for avr-gcc
sources?
That would certainly be the best way, though not the easiest if you
have never done this before.
- Is there a pre-compiled binary available somewhere? - Should I
be contacting whoever maintains the dell and ubuntu repositories
to get them to commit the latest versions of avr-gcc packages?
I'm not familiar enough with ubuntu to know if there are
pre-compiled binaries somewhere. Contacting the maintainers is
certainly a good idea, though see more below.
Other questions:
Who maintains avr-gcc anyway? Is it the same people that
maintain the AVR-libc project? Do these go hand-in-hand?
There are 2 official port maintainers for the AVR port: Denis
Chertykov, who is not very active; and Anatoly Sokolov, who is very
active. There are other people who also work on avr-gcc as well,
though not very many (myself included). Yes, it is generally the
same people who work on avr-gcc that work on avr-libc. Yes, they
kind of go hand-in-hand, in the sense that avr-libc is the Standard
C library for the AVR, and so it has to be used with the compiler
(and assembler and linker).
How is this different from the cross-gcc project (crosstool,
etc)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "cross-gcc project", however, I am
familiar with crosstool. Crosstool does not have support for
building the AVR, though I spoke with Dan Kegel (the author) many
years ago about doing it sometime. It never came to fruition.
How is this different from the WinAVR project?
The WinAVR project is an AVR toolchain distribution that is hosted
on Windows, which I manage. Other people manage other
distributions. Joerg Wunsch manages the FreeBSD distribution. Other
people manage the distribution on Mac OS X. Currently there is no
single person managing Linux distributions. There are different
people who maintain packages on different Linux distros, though
they don't seem to be very active here. And for completeness, it is
known that the toolchain can be built on Solaris and NetBSD, though
I don't know of any official maintainers.
Something to note: Each release of WinAVR has many outside patches
to the toolchain, either to fix bugs, add new features, or (mostly)
add support for new devices. This is probably what you have run
into: WinAVR has support for a device that is not yet available on
your Linux-based AVR toolchain. Joerg Wunsch and I try to keep in
sync in terms of what patches to include in our distributions of
the toolchain. The people who take care of the Mac OS X
distribution base their releases on the WinAVR patches as well (to
be bug-for-bug compatible). On the AVR Freaks website
(www.avrfreaks.net), there is an AVR GCC Forum with a sticky post
that contains a very well maintained build script for Linux, that
is also based on the WinAVR patches (both Joerg and I know the
person who maintains it). That build script is the first place that
we refer to people who want to build their own AVR toolchain on
Linux.
It would be nice if the various Linux package maintainers would be
more actively involved that way they can stay up to date with the
latest patches.
HTH, Eric Weddington