Okay, it's not exactly that the documentation is inaccurate or anything,
it's that the documentation that comes with the tools is inaccurate. at
least a subset of the manual should be included with, at minimum, gcc.
As for finding the manual, i now can find it on the site, how 'bout a
non-pdf version for download though? I see there is only the pdf's in the
download area, and a set of pages on the site, maybe a text version for
those of us who don't a graphical interface on computers with no net three
quarters of the time?
I only found out about that section of the manual when it was posted. Now
looking at the manual pages, i notice the 'building mspgcc from source
code' down right at the bottom, rather inconvenient place for someone just
getting into the feild, i sugest a link from 2.3 - 'Installation on other
platforms' to the section on compiling, since there is only a mention that
you can build the source code, not how to or where to look for info.
i do respect the fact that there be strange naming due to quirks or
mistakes in the past, but please leave more than just a blank file with
the name "THIS_ACCUALLY_WORKS_WITH_VERSION_3_2_AND_BELOW_2002_09_02"
to say that's the case. that file was very confusing, since it didn't
say anything specific. maybe:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
this directory works with gcc-3.2.x (tested with 3.2.3)
The mismatch between the numbering of gcc and this director is an
historical accident.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As the contents to the file?
The documentation i was trying to follow was in the libc directory. This
documentation does work, after you've read the ther documents and found
out why there's no gcc/gcc-3.2 directory.
As for reading the manual, i got half way through the third chapter,
realised i didn't have a clue what it was saying since i hadn't used the
device before, and went and installed the windows packages after getting
frustrated the first time trying to make the compiler.
Now i understand the hardware reasonably well, so i have never gone back
to the manual.
Well, that's my opinion on the docs,
Matthew
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Steve Underwood wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Matthew Peters wrote:
>
> >Well, i think the best sugestion is to make all the different
> >documentation point to that document, and maybe put a copy of that section
> >in an 'INSTALL' file found in the packages.
> >
> >A good example of the problem is that i had never read that gcc-3.3 in the
> >cvs tree was supposed to go with gcc-3.2.3. I tried a gcc-3.3 source with the
> >cvs files and it didn't work.
> >
> >gcc compiled, awsome. Thanks for the link, btw, i doubt i would've figured
> >this out without it.
> > Matthew Peters
> >
> >
> >
> You didn't read the manual. It tells you about this, and that it is a
> historical accident. People complain there is no documentation, but most
> times they just don't read it. I'd still like to know where the manual
> is inadequate, and what we need to add to improve it.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
> Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
> a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
>
>
