| |||||||||||||
gcc portsgcc portsPosted Sep 21, 2007 6:19 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: gNewSense by gdt Parent article: MadWifi developers move to ath5k Oh, come on. It's standard practice for vendors of new CPU architectures to work on a gcc port very early, and the gcc team is happy to cooperate with such efforts, and offer assistance (or point people to qualified consultants who will do the port for pay). You wouldn't be first down a path, you'd be on a well-travelled road.
(Log in to post comments)
gcc ports Posted Sep 27, 2007 18:29 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] A lot of microcontrollers embedded in existing devices use architectures that GCC doesn't support. A lot of them actually use an architecture that's been around for 27 years and has never gotten a GCC port: the 8051. GCC also doesn't support PIC microcontrollers. Then there are FPGA-based systems, which need an entirely different firmware design. In fact, most embedded platforms that GCC targets will have embedded flash, meaning that firmware wouldn't be part of drivers anyway; the hardware would come with a version installed, and any changes would be released by the vendor as a download that users can install at their leisure.
gcc ports Posted Sep 27, 2007 19:38 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Many of these microcontrollers really are micro. When a programmer only has a few KB of instruction space, he does not want to write code in C. Assembly is the only way to go, and it isn't so bad.
You know the saying that C is portable assembly. Well, a good assembler makes it as easy to write as C, it just isn't portable.
|
|||||||||||||