AVR Freaks

From the GGC Manual (emphasis mine)...

Oops. :oops:
Someone didn't RTFM.
That pops one argument off the stack, lets address the others.

----------------------------------

Some have made the claim that the tools must be 'broken'. :shock:

I use a straight blade screwdriver on all screws. It often works. When it doesn't work, it must be that the screwdriver is faulty.

It is not a matter of faulty tools, it is a matter of using the correct tool for the task.
These tools, these options, were not designed for the task some are advocating.

I happen to think the tools are OK.
Certainly, not perfect.
But not broken as claimed, they work well for the task they were designed for.

If one bothers to RTFM, one would know which were the right tools for the job and, since those tools are freely available, there is little excuse not to use them.

If you really feel the tools are broken, you should bring up the issue here... http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

Better yet, fix the 'problem' yourself ...http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches

I'm sure we all will be waiting breathlessly for your results.

POP _broken_argument;
----------------------------------------

These options sometimes break things.
Not because the options themselves are defective.
Because what they do is often not compatible with the developers intent.
That is why, these options are... optional.

Some argue these options should be enabled by default.
Even if they were default, they would still be... optional.

Some argue that they should be mandatory. I happen to disagree, but...
As long as they are options, serious programmers must treat them as... optional.

POP _default_argument;
POP _mandatory_argument;
--------------------------------------

The Arduino Library is not the same animal as an archive library, but will serve to illustrate an important point.

The Arduino Way works. I think it is fair to say it works pretty well.

It works because Arduino controls everything.
Arduino provides the IDE, the compiler, linker, all the tools.

Arduino also controls the build process.
Of specific relevance here, Arduino controls the compiler and linker options too

Without that kind of control, the 'Arduino Way' does not work as well.

When distributing an archive library, you do not have that sort of control.

POP _control_argument
--------------------------------------

Some are complaining about the extra work required to build a library the traditional way.

While it is indeed a tiny bit more work, that burden should be on you, as the library developer.

But rather than offer a solid product, you would rather save yourself that tiny bit of effort, and put the burden on your customer to find a way to make your product work for them?

That smacks of laziness and selfishness.

POP _crybaby_argument;
--------------------------------------

Some have argued that one should not be forced to write a library the traditional way.

You are right, nobody should be forced to do so (as long as they are working for themselves).

And, nobody is forcing you to do so (unless you are working for me).

You have been advised, that's all. If you wish to use the wrong tool for the job, we all wish you the best of luck.

(P.S. You're fired) :lol:

POP _forced_argument
---------------------------------------

Some have made the incredible statement that, without the use of these options, unused functions and data must therefore be included in the final build.

Not only is this utter nonsense, it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the tools and how they work.

POP _unused_functions_argument
----------------------------------------

Some have argued that making section garbage collection the default, or even mandatory, would 'benefit the 99%', because it removes 'dead code'.

I must say, I do not believe that serious programmers write dead code 99% of the time.
Nor can I believe that 99% of serious programmers write dead code.
Hell, I can't believe even that 99% of rank, amateur student code contains any dead code.

Yes, there are times when it happens. Existing compiler warnings give plenty of indication of this, and serious programmers will take heed of these warnings, because they want to write good code.

So, I must assume that by 99% you must mean beginners who have not yet learned any better, and sometimes produce dead code... until they learn better.

You seem to be advocating a major change in the tools, which will severely affect the ability of almost all serious programmers to write reliable code for interrupt service routines, device drivers, jump tables... as well as require re-writing of thousands of thousands of lines of pre-existing library code.

For what? It will simply encourage the students and amateurs to continue to produce crappy code, that's all.

POP _majority_argument
---------------------------------------

Some have accused me of bias.

A traditional library works.

One that relies on garbage collection: not always

I must admit that I am biased.

POP _biased_argument;

EOF;