makefile for gcctest9 under winavr 3.3?

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

Hello,

I hate to ask this but I'm at my wits end...

Does anyone have a makefile that builds gcctest9 using the new winavr 3.3 release?

Because I can't get it to build, and I've been trying. Trying different makefiles, editing the supplied gcctest9 one, editing the sample makefile that came with winavr, etc. If anyone has already done this (and I figure that someone must have, as gcctest9 is a great testcase when installing a new compiler), please let me know.

I am building from the windows2000 command line prompt, ie, I just type "make".

Thanks a lot.

Frank.

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

I packed gcctest9 worked under WinAVR3.3 in the attachment. Please have a look.

The makefile is modified from sample in WinAVR.

The two *.inc files are from avr-libc source code.

Some path of include files are modified to suit new avr-libc.

__inw_atomic is not supported now. Refrence macro in timer.h is changed.

But, acording to the sfr_defs.h, inp, outp, inw, outw will will eventually be removed. You'd better change all these call in several *.c file.

More, I noticed the following sentence in sfr_defs.h of the newest(20030203cvs) avr-libc source code:
"The order of the arguments was switched in older versions of avr-libc (versions <= 20020203)."

admin's test signature
 

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

> "The order of the arguments was switched in older
> versions of avr-libc (versions <= 20020203)."

That's for outb(). It had an illogical order of
arguments previously (value first, port number second),
now the order is more "natural" (unless you come from a
Linux background :-).

However, we really deprecate any use of the old IO
functions resp. function-like macros. Better use the
direct assignment form now. It's even more natural
anyway, and it is compatible with other compilers for
the AVR platform.

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

Thanks very much for the response & attachment. I was curious if you were able to get it to compile? I know I wasn't, due to the problems you mentioned. Interestingly enough, once I gave up on gcctest9 and tried compiling my own code, I had it building within a few minutes. It was very easy.

Frank.