Author Topic: Project Template For AVR GCC Compiler  (Read 30386 times)

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Project Template For AVR GCC Compiler
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2011, 01:25:44 pm »
oBFusCATed: Check boxes are not useless and have to be made optional imo.
I've not said it is useless, I've asked why it is removed.
Sry I didn't mean that, I was talking about the ones kenzanin removed.

I had added a 4th page to the current template I'm using for programmer and debugger options. Tonight (I hope) I'll create a patch and submit it for u to review. I think there won't be a separate template needed for different systems by that cuz the tools use the same options for every system afaik. It's just that current template lacks space for every option.

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Project Template For AVR GCC Compiler
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2011, 06:16:22 pm »
I attached my latest modified version of the AVR template for review. Changes are below as many as I can remember them:

-Added programmer and debugger options to use with the Tools+ or tools plugins on an extra options page.
-Added generation of separate fuse (high, low, extended), signature and lock bytes.
-Changed the project type from 'console' to 'native'.
-I find the '.elf.eep, elf.hex etc...' like file extensions confusing so I modified the template to generate '.elf, .eep, .hex etc...' instead.

That's all I can remember.

I'm submitting this patch and also the 'MCS51' template patch to the patch tracker if appropriate.

Edit: Also submitted to the patch tracker.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 11:49:16 am by scarphin »

Offline kenzanin

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • solderen.co.cc/forum
    • Forum electronika indonesia
Re: Project Template For AVR GCC Compiler
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2011, 08:14:23 am »
scarphin: thanks you i am studying your patch :D

Offline scarphin

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Project Template For AVR GCC Compiler
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2011, 09:37:20 am »