Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [avr-gcc-list] ATTiny2313 GCC Support? (fwd)

[Bob Paddock]

On Sunday 30 January 2005 01:20 pm, Frederik ROULEAU wrote:

> It should be easy to adapt this patch against GCC 3.4 as it only moves
> tiny13 and tiny2313 to avr2 arch.

Thank you.  Looks like I need to make a patch for the patches?

Where can find documentation on what exactly the AVRx stuff means, so
I can try to recreate a new AVR6 that regain  "movw, spm and some
form of lpm asm instructions"?

avr1 Simple CPU core, only assembler support
avr2 "Classic" CPU core, up to 8 KB of ROM
avr3 "Classic" CPU core, more than 8 KB of ROM
avr4 "Enhanced" CPU core, up to 8 KB of ROM
avr5 "Enhanced" CPU core, more than 8 KB of ROM

> Binutils does not need any patch for this.

Is the assembler GAS not effected?

RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gas/config/tc-avr.c,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -p -p -r1.20 tc-avr.c

--- gas/config/tc-avr.c 30 Nov 2002 08:39:43 -0000 1.20
+++ gas/config/tc-avr.c 3 Apr 2004 00:03:09 -0000

[snip]

+  {"attiny13",  AVR_ISA_TINY2,    bfd_mach_avr4},
+  {"attiny2313",AVR_ISA_TINY2,    bfd_mach_avr4},

[snip]

I just looked at binutils-2.15 and 2.15.92.0.2 they both
call out the tiny2313 as avr4. 

No patching is needed for 2.15.92.0.2, but it is for 2.15.

I also checked Tiny26 and it is avr2 as it should be.

> Bob Paddock wrote:
> >I'll conceded that avr-libc-1.2.1 is fixed, but if there is no released
> >version of GCC/Binutils with the patches applied, and it is not safe to
> > use the unreleased version, and the patch set we have posted is broken,
> > where does that leave us?  Rod and Victoria are examples of the broken
> > patch set escaping into the real world.
> >
> >Where do I get the patch set for GCC/Binutils that has the 'Tiny' fixed?