[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #35467] Not sure this the right plce to submit t

From: Vidya Praveen
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #35467] Not sure this the right plce to submit this but...
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:09:07 +0530
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0

On 2/9/2012 1:46 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 20:17, Vidya Praveen wrote:
>> Hi
>> Things change in the compiler and there are often cases which are not
>> covered due to several reasons. it's not uncommon to see something that
>> works in a earlier version stops working later. It will be great if you
>> could reduce your test case and/or find out what is going wrong and post
>> this in avr-gcc-list.If you think the problem is specific to AVR
>> Toolchain, I recommend you to contact the Atmel support. Thanks
> You are probably better off posting such information to the avr-gcc 
> mailing list rather than Atmel support.  I have nothing to complain 
> about regarding Atmel's support team - I have certainly encountered far 
> worse - but by posting to the avr-gcc mailing list you get the 
> information directly to the people responsible for the avr port of gcc, 
> and you also inform other avr-gcc users.

I wanted to mean that when it seem specific to "AVR Toolchain" from Atmel.
There are situations when it may seem so or it is so. Mostly because of the way
it is packaged or any patches used that are not committed.

Vidya Praveen

> mvh.,
> David
>> Regards
>> Vidya Praveen
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Daved <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>     Thanks for the responses guys. It's not always clear where to post
>>     problems with this stuff.
>>     I have since done a general web search for the problem and did find
>>     a code correction for w5100.h. I was about to try it when my Arduino
>>     ATmega328P chip went bad and I am now waiting for another one in the
>>     mail. It's still puzzling why an earlier complier version works
>>     while a newer one does not.
>>     Anyway, I have already spent way too much time tracking this down so
>>     other than testing the code correction when I get a new chip, I am
>>     going to let it rest
>>     Dave
>>     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joerg Wunsch"
>>     <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
>>     To: "David Brown" <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
>>     Cc: "David DeHaven" <address@hidden
>>     <mailto:address@hidden>>; <address@hidden
>>     <mailto:address@hidden>>
>>     Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:46 AM
>>     Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #35467] Not sure this the right
>>     plce to submit this but...
>>         As David Brown wrote:
>>             For future reference, remember that when you make a bug
>>             report, the
>>             "summary" is critical - it lets people see at a glance what
>>             the problem
>>             is, it is used for searching for similar problems, and is
>>             used in
>>             reports of outstanding issues.
>>         Thanks for the reminder, I changed the subject in the bug
>>         tracker even
>>         though it's closed, for the benefit of those who are searching
>>         old bug
>>         reports.
>>         --
>>         cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL
>>         http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
>>         Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     AVR-libc-dev mailing list
>>     address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>>     https://lists.nongnu.org/__mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
>>     <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev>

reply via email to

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