Is this distro version of avr-gcc useful?

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

Are the distro versions of avr-gcc listed here useful: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/... ?
The following gives me hope:

Thibault North wrote:
- Add patch of Eric Weddington to support new devices and compile last avr-libc

"Demons after money.
Whatever happened to the still beating heart of a virgin?
No one has any standards anymore." -- Giles

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

That is very, very old. Can you use the Linux builds of the official Atmel Toolchain instead, to ensure you have an up to date compiler and device support?

http://www.atmel.com/tools/atmel...

- Dean :twisted:

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

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

Michael,

Is there some reason you cannot simply use Atmel's own build of their AVR Toolchain for Linux? (4.6.2)

After earlier hiccups Atmel have pretty much got it cracked these days.

(admittedly they do not include EW's -C patch for avr-size though).

Cliff

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

I suppose I can use the Atmel version.
At the moment, I'm waiting for the e-mail that Atmel's registration system claims to have sent me.
For some reason, I'd been under the impression that it was more source code to compile.
Given my travails with the foolproof Bingo scripts, I'd been reluctant to try it.

Given the Atmel toolchain, are the Bingo scripts still useful?

"Demons after money.
Whatever happened to the still beating heart of a virgin?
No one has any standards anymore." -- Giles

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

Quote:

Given the Atmel toolchain, are the Bingo scripts still useful?

As long as we can trust the Atmel build (and it's widespread usage under AS6 in the Windows version will hopefully prove any faults) then it does seem that Bingo's script/builds are a little dated as the Atmel one is 4.6.2 and I guess there's a hope we'll see a 4.7 or 4.8 variant shortly.

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

There is already a 4.7.2 build for the ones inclined to MS Windows. For the Linux it's straight forward to build the tools themselves.

Thus anyone who wants can give 4.7.2 a try.

4.7.2 was released vereral months ago and the only problem I am aware of is a hickup in the build system if you configure for Ada.

My build is not an official release. However, it runs smooth nonetheless.

avrfreaks does not support Opera. Profile inactive.

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

SprinterSB wrote:
... and the only problem I am aware of is a hickup in the build system if you configure for Ada.
That appears to have a patch and AVR-Ada 1.2.1 (GCC 4.7.2) appears to be imminent.
Ref.
Re: [Avr-ada-devel] Source release of V1.2.1
Release Notes for AVR-Ada V1.2

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

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

The patch is pending review since 2012-11-23, see gcc-patches.

avrfreaks does not support Opera. Profile inactive.

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

I plan to get near atmel upstream support in debian. I am stepping forward to be the mainteners for debian/ubuntu of the *-avr package.

I am beginning with binutils. Do you know the patch set I need to apply to binutils 2.23 ?

Bastien

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

I'd propose you skim bugzilla and the open / closed avr PRs there.

avrfreaks does not support Opera. Profile inactive.

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

@spintersb: any pointer ?

I believe that the avr tiny was not merged upstream?

Bastien

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

There is no tiny in binutils, thus nothing to merge.

FYI, these forims here are for people that use the tools, most developers don't hang around here.

avrfreaks does not support Opera. Profile inactive.