Re: [avr-libc-dev] 1.8.1?

[Georg-Johann Lay]

Joerg Wunsch schrieb:
> As Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
> > They just add startup code, perhaps a linker script to describe
> > memory on their boards and compile for their architecture.
>
> Still, if it's not the IDE that does it on their behalf, most of those
> professional ARM developers are hosed.  They solely rely on their
> (often payware, like CodeSourcery) IDE to do it for them.  If the IDE
> doesn't do it, they are standing in about the same rain as an AVR
> developer whose device is not supported by the toolchain.
>
> The AVR approach is somewhat more user-friendly, in that you can add
> a single -mmcu option, and then compile your sources the same simple
> way as you would e.g. be able to compile code for your host computer.
>
> Technically, the way you describe would still be possible even with
> today's AVR-GCC and binutils: just use the appropriate -mmcu=avrXXX
> option describing the CPU core / overall architecture, use your
> appropriate linker options (for SRAM start etc.) or linker script,
> supply your own IO header file.  Minus a few things in avr-libc (like
> power management or EEPROM support), this would work.  Right now.
>
> Nobody does it that way.

Ok, thanks for the feedback.  Eric says the same.  Conclusion:

No matter how had it is needed to compile code for XYZ.
No matter how well it is explained and documented.
No matter how small the delta to -mmcu=xyz is

People won't use it.

Good news is that we don't need to think about and don't need to put 
effort in working out alternatives to the classical -mmcu=xyz.

Nobody would use it, anyway.


Johann