J"org wrote: > AVR Studio > even lacks the ability to display out-of-scope variables, yet > most people appear to just live with that.
Not out of choice, I assure you. Were the ability there, I would use it in a heartbeat. I need to spend time with AVR-GDB - I've heard good things about it. > I doubt there's a > very broad audience for improved stackframes -- as I said, > people do care for the amount of code generated, next they do > care for the code size, then they compare the generated code > size with compiler XYZ, and only then they start comparing > other features. :-/ For some users, I'm sure this is true. For others (such as me), an ability to show a stack trace would be a godsend. Not everyone is trying to fit code into an ATtiny or ATmega8! I specifically chose the ATmega2560 and added external SRAM so I would not have to worry about memory resources (as much). If I could trade SRAM efficiency for a stack trace, especially as a compile-time option, I would take it! Eh, such is life. Since I don't have them, I live without them. But just because I don't have stack traces (...and a Lotus Elise ;-) ), don't believe for a minute that I don't wish for them! Best regards, Stu Bell DataPlay (DPHI, Inc.) _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
