Is it worth to update to WinAVR081205?

Go To Last Post
8 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I can't find any comprehensive changelog for WinAVR (not even a hint of it).

Anybody knows what's new in this version, as compared to the previous few versions (I am currently using 20071227)?

Thanks,

JW

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

You can always look at the WinAVR bug tracker to find the list of closed bugs.

Since WinAVR 2007* the AVR version of gcc has been going through trials to support the changes introduced in GCC 4.* -- many of the changes make sense on large machines (ARM, x86, ...) but cause code bloat on our little AVRs. While I use an ATmega2560 and so don't care much about code bloat, the folks in ATTiny processors are hurting a bit.

On the other hand, there have been numerous fixes in the library and a recent effort to improve the floating point library. In addition, the new processors (Xmega, at. al.) are only being added to the latest version of WinVAR.

If you have a large code base and are only doing minor tweaks to it, I would stick with the 2007 version.

If you are developing new applications, do the upgrade. It's really tough to get folks to listen to your bug report when you are using a compiler that is a year old.

Stu

Engineering seems to boil down to: Cheap. Fast. Good. Choose two. Sometimes choose only one.

Newbie? Be sure to read the thread Newbie? Start here!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:
If you have a large code base and are only doing minor tweaks to it, I would stick with the 2007 version.

If you are developing new applications, do the upgrade.


Thanks for your response, Stu.

Well, I do both... maintaining older projects and at the same time developing new ones. Isn't this something most developers do? I always envy those who don't need to deal with their own mistakes from the past... ;-)

So, as I prefer not shooting myself into foot by working with two different versions at the same time, I am left here basically with no option :-(

As you wrote, there's much more than just the bugfixes, and it seems unlikely to be able to find out, what has exactly changed, given no changelog, and apparently also no access to the resources using which WinAVR is built (not that I would like to browse through them to recreate the changelog or write proper documentation from scratch).

I know that people doing this as a hobby tend to prefer coding to documenting, and I am aware of the wager they get for their work (which converts to the pricetag of of these tools); but, at the same time, doesn't the neglection to document at least the changes somewhat negate their effort?

Jan Waclawek

[added later] I can't even post a complaint in the said bug tracker, as it's already there... :-|

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:

doesn't the neglection to document at least the changes somewhat negate their effort

Just remind me again exactly how much you paid for your copy of GCC? ;-)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

wek wrote:
Stu wrote:
If you have a large code base and are only doing minor tweaks to it, I would stick with the 2007 version.

If you are developing new applications, do the upgrade.

Well, I do both... maintaining older projects and at the same time developing new ones. Isn't this something most developers do?
Yup. That's why I archive the toolset along with the source code in my source control system. Just having the source to a particular version is not enough if the need is to do a minor tweak.

Ongoing projects are always updated to the latest and greatest, though. It's worth it to me to spend the time making sure I can go forward with bothg the project and the toolset.

wek wrote:
I know that people doing this as a hobby tend to prefer coding to documenting, and I am aware of the wager they get for their work (which converts to the price tag of of these tools); but, at the same time, doesn't the neglection to document at least the changes somewhat negate their effort?
So, what's changed recently in your version of Windows? How about Visual Studio? For that matter, how about MacOS X? The change list, if it's there, is usually pretty "glossy".

Yeah, I agree, I keep a change history for my projects. I wish everyone did. I realize that not everyone is as dedicated to that as I am. I guess that's why I'm paid the big bucks. 8)

Stu

Engineering seems to boil down to: Cheap. Fast. Good. Choose two. Sometimes choose only one.

Newbie? Be sure to read the thread Newbie? Start here!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

stu_san wrote:
wek wrote:
I know that people doing this as a hobby tend to prefer coding to documenting, and I am aware of the wager they get for their work (which converts to the price tag of of these tools); but, at the same time, doesn't the neglection to document at least the changes somewhat negate their effort?
So, what's changed recently in your version of Windows? How about Visual Studio? For that matter, how about MacOS X? The change list, if it's there, is usually pretty "glossy".

Yeah, maybe, but that's quite a different story. Anyway, I don't use the latter two, and as far as the first is concerned, I stick to a version known to work with a particular set of hardware, as long as possible. A year ago, I was still using a W95 (original edition) machine to continue a project started somewhen in the last century (the PC is said to still exist untouched, I left the company). Use W98 at home, in a rock stable configuration. Oh yes, I think twice or threece before installing *anything* - this very thread being the proof. In WXP and the more modern software, I even turn the "auto updates" off, if possible (although I believe the Redmond guys do have their ways). I will resist Vista as long as possible. I am a rather conservative type, you see... :-)

stu_san wrote:
Yeah, I agree, I keep a change history for my projects. I wish everyone did. I realize that not everyone is as dedicated to that as I am.

Well, yeah, I hope, once, people out there realize, that both they, and the target audience, benefits from the effort to keep a changelog up to date.

If you want to see a positive example of a comparable scale project - and on the very same budget :-) - have a look at sdcc. Not only the developers use properly svn, which provides an automatically created changelog of itself, but they also take the pain to maintain a wiki-based "Features list" (scroll down for the list itself), exactly in order to be able to publish it as release notes (you can have a look at the older version's release notes on the wiki, too - just go one level up).

stu_san wrote:
I guess that's why I'm paid the big bucks. 8)

I wish this would be the right way how to get paid the big bucks... :-?

Thanks for your comments.

Jan

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:

In WXP and the more modern software, I even turn the "auto updates" off, if possible

Then you are a fool in that regard. Automatic updates push only important/critical marked patches to your PC on the second Tuesday of each month. By all means ignore the optional patches, but the security patches are not to be ignored.

If you haven't patched, your XP installation will be susceptible to the recent no-authentication remote root exploit, the TCP stack remote exploit and perhaps at least another two-dozen CRITICAL remote exploit flaws.

Sorry, but people who do this annoy the hell out of me - your infected machines are the reason spam and viruses manage to spread so happily. Have you connected your PC to your router though a bridged connection on a laptop/another PC lately and looked at the traffic?

- Dean :twisted:

Make Atmel Studio better with my free extensions. Open source and feedback welcome!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Oh, thanks for your concerns, but this is completely off-topic to this thread - and the whole Forum - so, please, you won't question security of my setup (which you don't know anyway), and I won't question yours, OK?

Jan Waclawek