Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 09/13/2013 12:27 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 09/13/2013 11:37 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: If we've got to that point then I may be able to assist in making that happen, but there were some concerns that those using the old packages may not be ready to move to the new ones right away - so it would be nice to hear some thoughts on that. Should we do it now, or wait a little while? Wait a little while. The base port is checked in, but a number of optimizations are still pending. Optimizations are now in. Thanks Nick DJ! The gcc package obviously depends on the binutils package, so another issue was not wanting to upgrade the binutils package until a new gcc was ready since its very likely that the old gcc wouldn't work with the new binutils, Binutils is completely upstream at this point. If it does something wrong we'd like to hear about it! Turns out there was one more binutils patch outstanding, but likewise it is now checked in. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
msp430mcu in its current form will almost certainly not work with the new compiler, unless somebody's forked it without telling me. The headers get mspgcc-specific material added, and the linker scripts are for the mspgcc version of gdb. It would make sense to have msp430mcu be the mechanism providing these tools for gcc as well as mspgcc, since it's the obvious name for its function. Nobody's talked to me about that, though, so I assume TI's gone a different route. Peter On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Taranowski t...@baringforge.comwrote: What's the current word on the msp430 variant header files and corresponding linker scripts? Is there a plan to release those soon? If not, has anyone testing been done of the compiler against Peter's linker scripts and header files? Thomas Taranowski | 425-442-9209 | skype: thomas.taranowski | baringforge.com On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this only applies when the initialisation involves a constructor function rather than just assignment of a fixed value. Correct. are all run before main() is called. These might add extra code space because the constructor calls can't be fully inlined here, but it should not be much. There is some startup code to go through the list of such functions, and call them all, too. It's not much, but if every byte counts... -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
What's the current word on the msp430 variant header files and corresponding linker scripts? Is there a plan to release those soon? If not, has anyone testing been done of the compiler against Peter's linker scripts and header files? Thomas Taranowski | 425-442-9209 | skype: thomas.taranowski | baringforge.com On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this only applies when the initialisation involves a constructor function rather than just assignment of a fixed value. Correct. are all run before main() is called. These might add extra code space because the constructor calls can't be fully inlined here, but it should not be much. There is some startup code to go through the list of such functions, and call them all, too. It's not much, but if every byte counts... -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 14/09/13 01:25, DJ Delorie wrote:
For small targets like this, it is common to compile C++ with -fno-rtti
True, but even the static objects must be initialized code adds some
runtime space/time cost. It's not much, but the smallest MSP430's
don't have much rom/ram to spare.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this only applies when the
initialisation involves a constructor function rather than just
assignment of a fixed value. In C, initialisers must always be a
compile-time constant, and the static objects are handled just like any
global objects (but with non-global names) - they go in the initialised
data section, and are set up before main() starts by a straight copy of
the flash data into the ram data.
C++ allows initialisers that are not constant - they can be function
calls, or object constructors. For global and file-scope objects, these
are all run before main() is called. These might add extra code space
because the constructor calls can't be fully inlined here, but it should
not be much.
For function-local statics, there is an overhead - as far as I
understand it, the compiler does the equivalent of this translation:
void foo(void) {
static type local = constructor();
rest_of_foo();
}
implemented very roughly as:
void foo(void) {
static type local;
static bool local_is_initialised = false;
if (!local_is_initialised) {
local = constructor();
local_is_initialised = true;
}
rest_of_foo();
}
If I am correct here, then yes, this means extra code, extra ram, and
extra run-time to handle such static initialised objects.
However, I don't really see that as a problem. This is an extra feature
that C++ gives you, which you do not have to use - it is therefore fine
that there is a cost associated with using the feature. It is not like
exceptions, that can sometimes have a cost even if you don't use them -
that's why the -fno-exceptions flag is nice.
I wonder if it would be legal for the compiler to translate the above
foo into:
static type foo_local = constructor();
void foo(void) {
#define local foo_local
rest_of_foo();
}
That way, the static construction of local would be done before main()
using the table of global constructors (coming after the real global
constructors, of course), and therefore minimal overhead. The
disadvantage is that such static objects would be constructed whether
they are needed or not - but on embedded systems, you usually aim to
avoid having functions that are never called, so all static objects
would need to be constructed sooner or later.
mvh.,
David
--
LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99!
1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint
2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes
Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/22/13.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=64545871iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 14/09/13 02:45, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 09/13/2013 12:12 AM, David Brown wrote: Do you know of any timeplans for when it will be possible to get official toolchain snapshot packages with gcc, binutils and a library as prebuilt packages and source bundles? As a developer, I can play around with a self-built gcc, but for professional work it is critical to be able to say I am using TI's msp430 gcc toolchain version 2013-09-12 and know that the library and the code generators are identical (including bug-for-bug) whether I use that release on Windows or Linux, and whether I get it now or in ten years time. I don't mind whether it is Red Hat or TI that handle such packaging and releases, but that's what we need. Getting the port working and into the FSF tree is the biggest step in this journey, but it would be nice to know the timeframe forward. This particular detail is a work in progress. I would hazard a guess that TI will be able to comment in the not too distant future. That's fine. I just wanted to be entirely sure that it is coming - I've seen enough vendors get this wrong in the past. I have no doubts that Red Hat understands the importance of proper packaging, versioning, and the importance for users that they can get exactly the version they need, for whatever platform they need, whenever they need it - and that they can install and use multiple versions at the same time. But TI has not yet proved itself in this area (of course, I have no reason to think they will get it wrong - I just don't know yet), and I have seen Atmel get it wrong with the avr port of gcc. I have told Atmel about this, but they just do not seem to understand the issue - so I hope that TI can learn here and do things even better. (I don't want to talk down Atmel here - they do a good job of supporting the avr gcc port, and the avr gcc developers and maintainers are fantastic - but a few small steps would make things very much better.) The problem Atmel has is they believe the latest toolchain is always the best. Thus the latest version of their IDE always installs the latest compiler toolchain over old toolchains. Even the toolchain only installers insist on upgrading the existing versions and overwriting the users PATH - there isn't even any options to avoid this. (This applies mainly to the Windows installers, of course - their Linux toolchain packaging is better.) In embedded development, toolchain versions can be critical - so the common rule is that if a project is started with a particular toolchain version, it stays with that version. Changing versions is a major change to the project, and will require new rounds of qualifications and testing as well as perhaps changes to Makefiles, linker setup, etc. So my development machines typically have many versions of the same toolchain for the same target - you never know when you need to make a small change to an old project from years ago. So my ideal is that whenever you (TI and/or Red Hat) release a new version of the toolchain, you provide a bundle of gcc, binutils and libraries of a particular version. The package should be available for Windows (as a zip file of the directory, and as a setup.exe installer for the point-and-click crowd - not everyone is as fussy as me), as a pre-build binary tarball for Linux (32-bit x86 version would be enough for most cases), and as a source tarball (for archiving and for other systems). Some people might like a Mac version too. And all these packages should be put in an archive that is available for ever after. I am a professional developer - if such a service costs money, then that's okay. The most convenient method is that my company buys chips from TI and TI uses some of that profit to pay for the development tools (and Red Hat's services, of course!) - i.e., the tools are free to the end user. And of course payment for service and support is fine too - I am sure Red Hat and TI will figure something out here. If my description here sounds patronising, or preaching to the converted, then I am very happy. David -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/22/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=64545871iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this only applies when the initialisation involves a constructor function rather than just assignment of a fixed value. Correct. are all run before main() is called. These might add extra code space because the constructor calls can't be fully inlined here, but it should not be much. There is some startup code to go through the list of such functions, and call them all, too. It's not much, but if every byte counts... -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/22/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=64545871iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 12/09/13 20:48, DJ Delorie wrote: Just FYI, the port is now official as it's been approved and checked in to the FSF repository! http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-09/msg00107.html I have some follow-up patches that will get commited shortly too, though. Great news! Do you know of any timeplans for when it will be possible to get official toolchain snapshot packages with gcc, binutils and a library as prebuilt packages and source bundles? As a developer, I can play around with a self-built gcc, but for professional work it is critical to be able to say I am using TI's msp430 gcc toolchain version 2013-09-12 and know that the library and the code generators are identical (including bug-for-bug) whether I use that release on Windows or Linux, and whether I get it now or in ten years time. I don't mind whether it is Red Hat or TI that handle such packaging and releases, but that's what we need. Getting the port working and into the FSF tree is the biggest step in this journey, but it would be nice to know the timeframe forward. In the meantime, I will try out your new port if I can get the time. Thanks, David -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 12/09/13 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: Is c++ an officially supported aspect of the port? I'm going to conditionally say yes because, while I build and test C++, I know there are some language features of C I took advantage of to get far (20-bit) addressing, that C++ simply doesn't support. So I'm not sure how well C++ will work in real programs in all cases. Also, there's some overhead in setting up the C++ objects that might be an issue on the smallest MSP430 devices. You can work around it on a per-project basis, but it's something to keep in mind when choosing a language. For small targets like this, it is common to compile C++ with -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions, as these features can have a lot of overhead and need library support, and are seldom useful on such targets. For the AVR port of gcc, C++ works with these flags. So if you are able to say C++ works with exceptions and rtti disabled then that would be fantastic - the final parts may be nice to get completed, but I don't think they are a priority to users. (That's my 2 øre, anyway.) David I also expect there will be plenty of in real programs features you folks will be asking for that I'll need to add - FSF ports are not fixed in stone :-) If you ask me for FORTAN support, though, I'm more likely to say no :-) (or at least you're on your own) -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On Friday 13 Sep 2013 09:01:27 David Brown wrote: On 12/09/13 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: Is c++ an officially supported aspect of the port? I'm going to conditionally say yes because, while I build and test C++, I know there are some language features of C I took advantage of to get far (20-bit) addressing, that C++ simply doesn't support. So I'm not sure how well C++ will work in real programs in all cases. Also, there's some overhead in setting up the C++ objects that might be an issue on the smallest MSP430 devices. You can work around it on a per-project basis, but it's something to keep in mind when choosing a language. For small targets like this, it is common to compile C++ with -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions, as these features can have a lot of overhead and need library support, and are seldom useful on such targets. For the AVR port of gcc, C++ works with these flags. So if you are able to say C++ works with exceptions and rtti disabled then that would be fantastic - the final parts may be nice to get completed, but I don't think they are a priority to users. especially static polymorphism or meta-programming in modern C++ is such a great achievement and it is just so useful for microcontroller development I'm raising two hands for proper C++11 support! Michi (That's my 2 øre, anyway.) David I also expect there will be plenty of in real programs features you folks will be asking for that I'll need to add - FSF ports are not fixed in stone :-) If you ask me for FORTAN support, though, I'm more likely to say no :-) (or at least you're on your own) -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Hi, On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 12:27 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 09/13/2013 11:37 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: If we've got to that point then I may be able to assist in making that happen, but there were some concerns that those using the old packages may not be ready to move to the new ones right away - so it would be nice to hear some thoughts on that. Should we do it now, or wait a little while? Wait a little while. The base port is checked in, but a number of optimizations are still pending. Ok, sounds like a good plan. I'm not in any hurry - just want to be sure that we do it at the right time. The gcc package obviously depends on the binutils package, so another issue was not wanting to upgrade the binutils package until a new gcc was ready since its very likely that the old gcc wouldn't work with the new binutils, Binutils is completely upstream at this point. If it does something wrong we'd like to hear about it! I'm sure its ok in itself - the only issue is whether a version of gcc thats as old as the hills and heavily patched would still build over it. So lets wait until the gcc part is ready too, and we can then upgrade both at approximately the same time. It doesn't sound like this is too far away now, Steve. -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 09/13/2013 11:37 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: If we've got to that point then I may be able to assist in making that happen, but there were some concerns that those using the old packages may not be ready to move to the new ones right away - so it would be nice to hear some thoughts on that. Should we do it now, or wait a little while? Wait a little while. The base port is checked in, but a number of optimizations are still pending. The gcc package obviously depends on the binutils package, so another issue was not wanting to upgrade the binutils package until a new gcc was ready since its very likely that the old gcc wouldn't work with the new binutils, Binutils is completely upstream at this point. If it does something wrong we'd like to hear about it! -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
For small targets like this, it is common to compile C++ with -fno-rtti True, but even the static objects must be initialized code adds some runtime space/time cost. It's not much, but the smallest MSP430's don't have much rom/ram to spare. -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
This may be a little off this particular topic, but I was wondering if, along with the new toolchain support, there might be some work done to improve the experience of the MSP430 Launchpad in linux? The CDC-ACM driver has some unpleasant issues with the Launchpad (see, eg: http://log.or.cz/?p=265 ). I know there are patches floating around that deal with these issues, but it would obviously be good to get this fixed in the mainline kernel. Carl -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
On 09/13/2013 12:12 AM, David Brown wrote: Do you know of any timeplans for when it will be possible to get official toolchain snapshot packages with gcc, binutils and a library as prebuilt packages and source bundles? As a developer, I can play around with a self-built gcc, but for professional work it is critical to be able to say I am using TI's msp430 gcc toolchain version 2013-09-12 and know that the library and the code generators are identical (including bug-for-bug) whether I use that release on Windows or Linux, and whether I get it now or in ten years time. I don't mind whether it is Red Hat or TI that handle such packaging and releases, but that's what we need. Getting the port working and into the FSF tree is the biggest step in this journey, but it would be nice to know the timeframe forward. This particular detail is a work in progress. I would hazard a guess that TI will be able to comment in the not too distant future. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Okay I'll ask... Is there FORTRAN support? Now on to my real question... how much real world testing has been done? Has the output been put onto real msp430 chips? Or are you testing against the test suites? just wondering how much it has been banged on. Is it Alpha/Beta status? I handle building and supporting to some level the compilers being used for msp430 development for TinyOS. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Is c++ an officially supported aspect of the port? I'm going to conditionally say yes because, while I build and test C++, I know there are some language features of C I took advantage of to get far (20-bit) addressing, that C++ simply doesn't support. So I'm not sure how well C++ will work in real programs in all cases. Also, there's some overhead in setting up the C++ objects that might be an issue on the smallest MSP430 devices. You can work around it on a per-project basis, but it's something to keep in mind when choosing a language. I also expect there will be plenty of in real programs features you folks will be asking for that I'll need to add - FSF ports are not fixed in stone :-) If you ask me for FORTAN support, though, I'm more likely to say no :-) (or at least you're on your own) -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- Eric B. Decker Senior (over 50 :-) Researcher -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Is c++ an officially supported aspect of the port? I'm going to conditionally say yes because, while I build and test C++, I know there are some language features of C I took advantage of to get far (20-bit) addressing, that C++ simply doesn't support. So I'm not sure how well C++ will work in real programs in all cases. Also, there's some overhead in setting up the C++ objects that might be an issue on the smallest MSP430 devices. You can work around it on a per-project basis, but it's something to keep in mind when choosing a language. I also expect there will be plenty of in real programs features you folks will be asking for that I'll need to add - FSF ports are not fixed in stone :-) If you ask me for FORTAN support, though, I'm more likely to say no :-) (or at least you're on your own) -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Just FYI, the port is now official as it's been approved and checked in to the FSF repository! http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-09/msg00107.html I have some follow-up patches that will get commited shortly too, though. -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
Okay I'll ask... Is there FORTRAN support? No! :-) (but it might work anyway, I haven't tested) Now on to my real question... how much real world testing has been done? Has the output been put onto real msp430 chips? I'm testing against our simulator (it's in the gdb repo). I've built a few test apps, mostly blinky lights, for hardware testing, but most of the hardware testing has been to make sure the simulator is accurate. Or are you testing against the test suites? I'm using gcc's testsuite, which is tens of thousands of tests per multilib, with three multilibs (430, 430x, 430x/large). I handle building and supporting to some level the compilers being used for msp430 development for TinyOS. If you've been using mspgcc for this, you probably should continue using it for now, just because it's much more mature and feature-rich. However, if you want to start testing fsf-gcc with TinyOS, I really want to hear about anything that doesn't work ;-) -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
This is great news! Is c++ an officially supported aspect of the port? Thomas Taranowski | 425-442-9209 | skype: thomas.taranowski | baringforge.com On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Just FYI, the port is now official as it's been approved and checked in to the FSF repository! http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-09/msg00107.html I have some follow-up patches that will get commited shortly too, though. -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users -- How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=5127iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Re: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port
TI will provide header and linker files for all MSP430 derivatives my m/o August. Thanks, Thomas Mitnacht -Original Message- From: Adam Ford [mailto:aford...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:54 AM To: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Mspgcc-users] Unofficial Red Hat Port The unofficial patches are available for download, and by taking the Newlib and GCC from version control, you can build the GCC compiler. Check out https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/mspgcc/index.php?title=Install:redhat Special thanks for DJ for helping me. The Red Hat version does not have TI Header files or Linker scripts, so you'll have to adapt something. I will try to modify Peter's work on the headers and linker scripts to work with the Red Hat implementation and post an example when I have some time. adam -- Get your SQL database under version control now! Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
