On 19/05/2016 11:56, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Thanks :-) I see from the bug there's a workaround. Are there any
compelling features in 6.x that make it worth using that, or is it
better to just stick with 5.x until there's a fix for 6.x?
I'd prefer to stick to 5.x until all the 6.x issues
Alan Burlison writes:
> On 16/05/2016 18:13, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
>
>> Filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151 to track this.
>
> Thanks :-) I see from the bug there's a workaround. Are there any
> compelling features in 6.x that make it worth using that, or is it
> be
On 16/05/2016 18:13, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151 to track this.
Thanks :-) I see from the bug there's a workaround. Are there any
compelling features in 6.x that make it worth using that, or is it
better to just stick with 5.x until
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj writes:
> Alan Burlison writes:
>
>> I've just updated my toolchain to use GCC 6.1.0 and I notice that
>> constant C strings seem to be being placed automatically in PROGMEM,
>> rather than requiring the use of the PSTR macro as in the past. This
>> caused me some confusion
Alan Burlison writes:
> I've just updated my toolchain to use GCC 6.1.0 and I notice that
> constant C strings seem to be being placed automatically in PROGMEM,
> rather than requiring the use of the PSTR macro as in the past. This
> caused me some confusion because call such as printf("foo") sta
