On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Knut Schwichtenberg wrote:
> But now I back to the documentation:
>
>
> Michael Hennebry wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Knut Schwichtenberg wrote:
> >> BTW: Some month ago I asked the readers of this list to comment on a
> >> documentation update. Either my English is perfect
Knut Schwichtenberg wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, being back from the holiday trip, I read a lot comments to
simulavrxx. Lots of good points.
As and add-on to the Makefile story: Klaus can you please add your
makefile to a separate tree within the CVS so pepole can decide which
tool to struggle with?
Hi gang,
Okay, being back from the holiday trip, I read a lot comments to simulavrxx.
Lots of good points.
As and add-on to the Makefile story: Klaus can you please add your makefile to a
separate tree within the CVS so pepole can decide which tool to struggle with?
But now I back to the docum
Joerg Wunsch schrieb:
As Klaus Rudolph wrote:
Build it with MinGW / MSYS so Windows users can use it
Like to hear that :-) But I have no windows system running since now
more than 10 years.
But it's a legitimate request to have at least a flexible enough build
system around to accompli
7;t have)
Cheers,
Bill
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 11:30 -0600, Weddington, Eric wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Klaus Rudolph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 AM
> > To: Weddington, Eric
> > Cc: Michael N. Moran; simula
As Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> >Build it with MinGW / MSYS so Windows users can use it
> Like to hear that :-) But I have no windows system running since now
> more than 10 years.
But it's a legitimate request to have at least a flexible enough build
system around to accomplish that kind of task,
> -Original Message-
> From: Klaus Rudolph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Michael N. Moran; simulavr-devel@nongnu.org; Dhruvesh Patel
> Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Simulavr error
>
> Hi Eric,
Hi Eric,
Lets finish all the discussions... what is actually required from the
"outside world"? As I said: "My" simulavrxx is running fine
on multiple
unix systems. What is needed from the others??? What can I do
now to get
your problems solved?
Build it with MinGW / MSYS so Windows user
> -Original Message-
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> u.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Rudolph
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:50 AM
> To: Michael N. Moran
> Cc: simulavr-devel@nongnu.org; Dhruvesh Patel
> Subject: Re: [Simulavr-deve
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> My wish is very simple:
> Let the user use simulavrxx. Is there a problem having Makefile,
> autotools and CMake in parallel and a well documented way how to use them?
Documentaion, what a wonderful idea. (*)
> For "my" Makefile it is simple:
> edit co
Now we are ending again in a discussion...
From my point of view I will not replace autotools against CMake or a
Makefile against autotools or what ever.
My wish is very simple:
Let the user use simulavrxx. Is there a problem having Makefile,
autotools and CMake in parallel and a well documen
lol!
Ok everyone. Plutonium is bad...I can't figure out how to get autotools
to behave as anything other than that...perhaps I'm just dumb in this
area or just didn't devote enough time to understanding all the bits...
So..Klaus has a set of makefiles. I'd be happy to have them in and
explained
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Michael N. Moran wrote:
A reliable familiar way to build simulavrxx. :-)
e.g.
1) unpack (eg tar xzf)
2) configure (./configure)
3) make
4) make install
My problems seem to derive from step 1.5) run autotools.
IIRC having *the* right version of aut
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Michael N. Moran wrote:
> Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> > Michael N. Moran schrieb:
> >> I understand all sides of the issue ...
> >>
> >> Software developers (especially embedded software
> >> developers) should be comfortable with using make.
> >>
> >> I hate autotools, however, th
Klaus Rudolph wrote:
Michael N. Moran schrieb:
I understand all sides of the issue ...
Software developers (especially embedded software
developers) should be comfortable with using make.
I hate autotools, however, they are ubiquitous in the
free software world, and having yet-another syste
Michael N. Moran schrieb:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
Knut Schwichtenberg schrieb:
Bill,
William Rivet wrote:
I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
litt
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
Knut Schwichtenberg schrieb:
Bill,
William Rivet wrote:
I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
little nudging by Michael Buesc
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> Knut Schwichtenberg schrieb:
> > Bill,
> >
> > William Rivet wrote:
> >> I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
> >> system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
> >> little nudging by Michael Buesch
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Knut Schwichtenberg wrote:
> BTW: Some month ago I asked the readers of this list to comment on a
> documentation update. Either my English is perfect - which I can't believe -
> or
> nobody read it - which can be interpreted as a level of interest in
> simulavrxx,
> but I di
Knut Schwichtenberg schrieb:
Bill,
William Rivet wrote:
I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
little nudging by Michael Buesch :-)
Early this year I tried to build simulavrxx and got it running
Bill,
William Rivet wrote:
I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
little nudging by Michael Buesch :-)
Early this year I tried to build simulavrxx and got it running under Linux with
ordinary mak
Just wanted to let you know that I'm interested in simulavr*.
In failing to build simulavrxx, I extended simulavr with support for the
atmega162 chip I'm currently using. In the process, I also fixed some
bugs.
I was thinking of adding support for gdb tracepoints when I get the
time.
Tom
On Fri
Right, sorry if I gave the wrong impression ;-)
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:14 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, William Rivet wrote:
>
> > If there is interest in simulavrxx, pipe up. I tend to spend time on
> > this when I get people asking questions (like this :-) ) Depen
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, William Rivet wrote:
> If there is interest in simulavrxx, pipe up. I tend to spend time on
> this when I get people asking questions (like this :-) ) Depending on
> what Dhruvesh is doing, perhaps he could test out my CMake based build
> of simulavrxx. That's a bumpy ride on
Thanks Eric.
I'll just pipe in that I'm currently working on replacing the build
system for simulavrxx with something more sane via CMake...thanks to a
little nudging by Michael Buesch :-)
I'm focused on getting what was working all working under CMake,
reviving the test cases, and yes then I'll
> -Original Message-
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> u.org] On Behalf Of Dhruvesh Patel
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:24 AM
> To: simulavr-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: [Simulavr-devel] Simulavr error
>
> Hi,
>
> I am using winavr tools on Linux for AVR d
26 matches
Mail list logo
