Forums

Gcc Tools for AVR Studio

Started by Klaus Hummel June 17, 2004
There is a new gcc distribution on the Atmel Website for avr
controller.

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/tech_doc.asp?doc_id=9772

It contains avr-gcc 3.4.0 with Dwarf debug format support and an
Elf/Dwarf parser component for AVR Studio.

Has anybody experience with this distribution ?

Klaus
"Klaus Hummel" <skiron1@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:ef8d8dd2.0406170303.10223027@posting.google.com...
> There is a new gcc distribution on the Atmel Website for avr > controller. > > http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/tech_doc.asp?doc_id=9772 > > It contains avr-gcc 3.4.0 with Dwarf debug format support and an > Elf/Dwarf parser component for AVR Studio. > > Has anybody experience with this distribution ?
I've just installed it. It looks very like the avr-gcc tools that have been around for some time. I haven't tried it yet. Leon
skiron1@gmx.net (Klaus Hummel) wrote in message news:<ef8d8dd2.0406170303.10223027@posting.google.com>...
> There is a new gcc distribution on the Atmel Website for avr > controller. > > http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/tech_doc.asp?doc_id=9772 > > It contains avr-gcc 3.4.0 with Dwarf debug format support and an > Elf/Dwarf parser component for AVR Studio. > > Has anybody experience with this distribution ?
No, but I'm sure the next release of WinAVR will be built with DWARF support to support this beta release of AVR Studio.
E. Weddington wrote:
> skiron1@gmx.net (Klaus Hummel) wrote in message news:<ef8d8dd2.0406170303.10223027@posting.google.com>... > >>There is a new gcc distribution on the Atmel Website for avr >>controller. >> >>http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/tech_doc.asp?doc_id=9772 >> >>It contains avr-gcc 3.4.0 with Dwarf debug format support and an >>Elf/Dwarf parser component for AVR Studio. >> >>Has anybody experience with this distribution ? > > > No, but I'm sure the next release of WinAVR will be built with DWARF > support to support this beta release of AVR Studio.
Why another debugging format? What was wrong with COFF? Sometimes I get irritated by what seems to be just new formats for the sake of new formats. Well, if there's a good reason I guess I'll settle down. Good day! -- _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen crobc@earthlink.net Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19
Chris Carlen <crobc@bogus_field.earthlink.net> wrote:

> Why another debugging format? What was wrong with COFF?
Quite a lot, actually, if you're talking about genuine COFF debug info (as opposed to embedding .stabs debug info inside a separate section of a COFF file). For starters, COFF is quite completely useless as soon as you have #include'd files that actually generate code, because it has no way of specifying more than a single source file name per object file for the line numbers in the debug info to refer to. If you're even thinking of using inline function, let alone C++, that one's an almost certain showstopper. Actually anything short of DWARF2 is considered unusable for C++ debugging by the experts. And then there are some rather silly limitations, e.g. to a maxiumum of 64 Ki-lines of source code with debug information --- unlikely to bite you on an AVR, yes, but still a rather nasty limit if you ever hit it. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> Chris Carlen <crobc@bogus_field.earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>Why another debugging format? What was wrong with COFF? > > > Quite a lot, actually, if you're talking about genuine COFF debug info > (as opposed to embedding .stabs debug info inside a separate section > of a COFF file). > > For starters, COFF is quite completely useless as soon as you have > #include'd files that actually generate code, because it has no way of > specifying more than a single source file name per object file for the > line numbers in the debug info to refer to. If you're even thinking > of using inline function, let alone C++, that one's an almost certain > showstopper. Actually anything short of DWARF2 is considered unusable > for C++ debugging by the experts. > > And then there are some rather silly limitations, e.g. to a maxiumum > of 64 Ki-lines of source code with debug information --- unlikely to > bite you on an AVR, yes, but still a rather nasty limit if you ever > hit it.
Well, I see then! Thanks for the explanation. Good day! -- _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen crobc@earthlink.net Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19