[avr-gcc-list] Re: crosstool-NG

[David Brown]

On 04/03/2011 14:37, Graham Davies wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
> > (This is going to sound like an "I want" rant - which I suppose it is ...
> > I am a professional developer ... You don't change toolchains in a
> > project without very good reason ...
> > So I have a range of WinAVR compilers on my machine ...
> > It is vital that I can take an old project, re-compile it with the
> > same toolchain and the same options, and generate a bit-perfect copy
> > of the old binary target file ... and a whole lot more.
>
> I just want to say that David is spot on for what professionals need. I
> go a little further and fix the version of AVR Studio for a project as
> well. Since you can have only one version of AVR Studio installed at a
> time and AVR Studio does not uninstall reliably, this means that I have
> to re-install the operating system to switch versions. The only
> disagreement I have with David is the desire for everyone to move to
> Eclipse. All of my attempts to learn how to use it have ended with my
> head spinning. AVR Studio has about the right level of complexity and
> functionality for me. Eclipse is just too heavy. I know I am in a
> minority, so no discussion is necessary.

I agree that Eclipse is heavy - I use it for some things, but I also 
often use a lighter editor (typically Crimson Editor on Windows, and 
gedit on Linux).  An alternative middle-of-the-road choice is CodeBlocks.

However, if a vendor wants to make an IDE with a powerful debugger and 
top-class C (and C++) editor, then Eclipse is the only sensible choice. 
 Oddly enough, that's the choice Atmel made when they made AVR32 Studio 
- that's what makes this jump to Visual Studio even stranger.

> But, why is the situation at Atmel the way it is? Atmel have never been
> very good with technical support. I am an Approved Atmel AVR Consultant.
> I even have a number (13660). Even so, getting any kind of technical
> support is murderously difficult. (In fact, being an Approved Consultant
> gets me exactly nothing other than the ability to boast about it.) So my
> guess is that Atmel only want to even pretend to offer support on the
> latest version. This, I think, is why professional developers will never
> get what they want. It is just to expensive for Atmel to contemplate. We
> won't pay high prices for development tools, so Atmel is forced to take
> a low-cost approach. Maybe this also explains why only Windows is
> supported. Just my thoughts.

Actually, I /would/ be willing to pay for avr-gcc if the model were 
right.  My company has bought several licenses for gcc toolchains from 
CodeSourcery over the years, even though I often use the free versions 
rather than the paid-for versions (the free versions are stand-alone 
toolchains, the paid-for versions include Eclipse).  Paying also 
entitles you to commercial support.

However, I think it would be difficult for Atmel to start charging for 
development tools.  It would be too much of a mix of business models.