Re: [avr-gcc-list] How to rebuild AVR-GCC for Windows?

[Bob Paddock]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:13:48 -0500, Eric Weddington  
<address@hidden> wrote:

> Bob Paddock wrote:
> >  I want to build GCC 3.4.4/Binutils 2.16.1/AVR-LIBC 1.4
> > as I need to use the Tiny2313, Mega164, and Mega325.
> > Building all of these would be no problem for me on
> > my Linux box at home.  Alas the power's-that-be here
> > at work won't let me use Linux; "We are a windows
> > shop here" I was told. :-(
>
> Well, that's ridiculous.

Yes it is.

> I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

There is a definite lack of Embedded related jobs in the area
that I live, or at least within the distance I want to commute
everyday; Pittsburgh/Eire Region.

> Why did they say that?

IT said "Linux is a Toy".  Brought to you by the same people
who came around and nuked Cygwin previously because "the files
had funny permission attributes", when they made me backup my machine
to their domain server.  They could not restore a backup tape
because of my "funny permissions", got called into VP's office
to explain why my files "had funny permissions".  Now I just
keep Cygwin off of the network, even tho edicts say that I am
to backup all my tools there.

What is even more interesting that setting here beside me is
a Linux SBC I'm evaluating for use in a product.  Don't know
what is going to happen with that.

> Is there more than one developer working with the toolset?

There are four of us.  The motivation at the moment is
that the Boss wants to start using GCC on his new Mega164 project,
so it would be a Good Thing to have a Mega164 GCC compiler
when he switches over from IAR.  Myself I don't have any problem
running with Cygwin, but that is not going to happen for at least
two of the other people.

> >  When I was downloading GCC 3.4.4 sources I saw there was
> > a 3.4.5, any reason to use that?
>
> Generally, anything later would be good as it fixed more bugs.
>
> > I want to avoid 4.x.x for the moment.
>
> Hmm. Too bad, I'm putting together WinAVR but I'm using 4.0.1. Any  
> particular reason to avoid 4.x.x?

I've been following the list here and 4.x.x seemed like it was still
changing often.  "Generally, anything later would be good as it fixed more  
bugs",
so why not 4.0.2? ;-)  I'm willing to go with 4.0.x if it is stable enough
to be in the official WinAVR release, you had a message on the list a  
couple of
weeks ago saying the next release was going to be 3.4.4, so that is
what I was going to try to build.

Can you make the WinAVR build scripts, or instructions a part of the  
standard release?