[En-Nut-Discussion] Supporting Other Target Platforms

Harald Kipp harald.kipp at egnite.de
Mon Feb 2 12:19:45 CET 2004


Hi Kolja,

At 09:10 02.02.2004 +0100, Waschk,Kolja wrote:
> > wich compilers I should
> > chose in the first place for ARM7TDMI, H8/300 or Coldfire. [...]
> > Can anybody recommend any pre-build binaries for Win32?
>
>http://www.OCDemon.com has GNU gcc 2.95.3+binutils+gdb/insight for ARM.

Isn't 2.95 a little bit outdated?



>Looking at ARM targets, I'd suggest to select a particular configuration
>and document this selection for first steps. There are so many options, e.g.
>little vs big endian memory, presence of MMU, FPU, ... Many of these options
>have to be taken into account when configuring and building the toolchain.
>For example, a lot of toolchains have a libc with floating point instructions
>that wouldn't even disappear if you give the proper "no-fpu" compile options.

That's also my experience with arm-gcc. And I think it
is neccessary to have something pre-configured for
Windows, if this exists.

On Linux a well documented build process is sufficient.
No idea, how's the situation with OS/X, but I guess it's
similar to Linux up to a certain extend.

Being forced to install the full Cygwin development
toolchain and watching tons of warnings while the
cross compiler is build, wouldn't attract many
potential users.



>A reasonable configuration for an "ARM Ethernut" could be
>
>   - ARM7 core (Architecture v4)
>   - Thumb instructions available
>   - MMU not available
>   - FPU not available
>   - little endian memory (seems to be more common)

We selected the AT91R40008 for the first step. I expected
something other than Atmel again, and other chips are
superior in many aspects (DMA, more IOs). But the 256k
internal RAM is the killer argument.

Harald





More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list