On 12/20/2013 04:33 AM, Jan Waclawek wrote:
There really doesn't seem to be much of a point; GCC's AVR
support is very good these days.
>>>
>>> True, however sad it may be.
>>
>> It's sad that GCC supports AVR?
>
> No, the first part, i.e. that that killed avr-sdcc.
Oh ok.
>> W
Hello all,
In general I agree with Philipp. I think I am the most active mcs51
developer of recent times, but there is only so much I can do. However I
certainly won't encourage a beginner to start messing with compiler
internals. Anyone 'somewhat familiar' does not qualify IMO.
Maarten
> -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 20.12.2013 12:28, schrieb Ben Shi:
> Hi, guys,
>
> I am new to SDCC but have great interests in both using and
> developping it.
>
> The reason I asked for the AVR port is that I have interests in
> mcs51, avr and stm8. (they 3 and pic are the mos
Hi, guys,
I am new to SDCC but have great interests in both using and developping it.
The reason I asked for the AVR port is that I have interests in mcs51, avr and
stm8. (they 3 and pic are the most popular ones in my country)
If I want to do something, which one is suggested? Is it OK for me
>>>Well, GCC "supports MSP430" meaning TI distributes a hacked-up GCC
>>> that targets it, yes. That support has not yet (the last time I
>>> checked) been merged into the official sources, which means I'll have
>>> one different, weirdly-configured GCC installation alongside my
>>> half-dozen
>>> There really doesn't seem to be much of a point; GCC's AVR support is
>>> very good these days.
>>
>> True, however sad it may be.
>
> It's sad that GCC supports AVR?
No, the first part, i.e. that that killed avr-sdcc.
What a thoroughly odd thing to say.
>> it's easier to
>> learn to l
On 12/19/2013 05:40 PM, Masur Jonathan wrote:
> Le 19.12.2013 11:12, Dave McGuire a écrit :
>>Well, GCC supports AVR because people wrote AVR support into GCC. ;)
>> AVR is a bit more "compiler friendly" than, say, the Z80.
>
> Well, I'm not familiar with Z80, but by "compiler friendly" I gues
On 12/19/2013 05:48 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>>> Well, GCC supports AVR because people wrote AVR support into
>>> GCC. ;) AVR is a bit more "compiler friendly" than, say, the
>>> Z80.
>
>> Well, I'm not familiar with Z80, but by "compiler friendly" I
>> guess this basically means RISC right
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 19.12.2013 23:40, schrieb Masur Jonathan:
> Le 19.12.2013 11:12, Dave McGuire a écrit :
>> Well, GCC supports AVR because people wrote AVR support into GCC.
>> ;) AVR is a bit more "compiler friendly" than, say, the Z80.
>
> Well, I'm not familiar
Le 19.12.2013 11:12, Dave McGuire a écrit :
>Well, GCC supports AVR because people wrote AVR support into GCC. ;)
> AVR is a bit more "compiler friendly" than, say, the Z80.
Well, I'm not familiar with Z80, but by "compiler friendly" I guess this
basically means RISC right ? Each operation ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 19.12.2013 22:33, schrieb Masur Jonathan:
> Hello guys, This might be out of topic, but while this was
> mentionned, I've asked me this question a few times so I hope
> somebody has an answer.
>
> How comes AVR can be targetted by gcc at all ? AVR
On 12/19/2013 03:58 PM, Jan Waclawek wrote:
>> There really doesn't seem to be much of a point; GCC's AVR support is
>> very good these days.
>
> True, however sad it may be.
It's sad that GCC supports AVR? What a thoroughly odd thing to say.
> SDCC certainly has potential to support 8-bitte
On 12/19/2013 04:33 PM, Masur Jonathan wrote:
> This might be out of topic, but while this was mentionned, I've asked me
> this question a few times so I hope somebody has an answer.
>
> How comes AVR can be targetted by gcc at all ? AVR might be RISC, true,
> but it is a 8-bit architecture, and
Hello guys,
This might be out of topic, but while this was mentionned, I've asked me
this question a few times so I hope somebody has an answer.
How comes AVR can be targetted by gcc at all ? AVR might be RISC, true,
but it is a 8-bit architecture, and the standard gcc compiler is
optimized for
> There really doesn't seem to be much of a point; GCC's AVR support is
>very good these days.
True, however sad it may be.
SDCC certainly has potential to support 8-bitters much better than gcc, but
it's unlikely anybody will invest into the avr branch now - it's easier to
learn to live with th
There really doesn't seem to be much of a point; GCC's AVR support is
very good these days.
I don't mean that as a statement against SDCC in any way; I love SDCC,
and have for many years. But its specialty is supporting small
processors (more small *architectures* than processors) that are n
It is dead. AFAIK it cannot generate correct code and there is no one
working on it.
> Hello,
>
> Is the AVR branch still alive? I see some updates in the svn reposit but
> why it is disabled by default while building?
>
> Can it be used or not?
>
> Ben
--
17 matches
Mail list logo
