Re: [Simulavr-devel] simulavrxx timers

[Klaus Rudolph]

If there is no other work todo, we can have a merge to cvs. But my 
actual version is out via bz2 download, so there is no need to have this 
merge fast :-) Maybe give a information in "news".

Sorry for the misunderstanding and for unclear information from my side.

Let me explain the reasons :-)
Last weeks often I read here some build problem things... there was 
option to give a simple Makefile in the round to have 2 ways to build 
the simulavrxx. I did some really minor changes the last years :-), 
which have not found the way to CVS, sorry! And preparing the sources 
for gcc 4.3.0 there were some more corrections, but nothing which change 
behaviour I hope! :-)

So the download file has all changes, some patches included which were 
already posted in the patch area and thats it.

@Bill, again, yes it COULD be merged into CVS, but as there is no actual 
development ongoing from my side, I have no need for a merge :-) But it 
can be useful if there come a new avr from Michael next days... :-)

Again: Sorry, that I put not the last changes into CVS. But I thought it 
was a good idea to give first the download file, also for testing, 
before! merging into CVS. Maybe there is some work ongoing for build 
toolchain...

Regards
 Klaus


> I think Klaus and I crossed wires here...sorry guys. 
>
> I thought he explicitly didn't want it in CVS...but I see now he just
> meant for me to turn the crank on it to be sure it cycled here as well
> as on his machine before commiting to CVS...
>
> Klaus, unless you correct me, I'll try to get this committed this week
> along with a bunch of my build/example changes.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 13:27 -0500, Michael Hennebry wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2008, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry! Seems to be that cvs is older than my local files... Bill has
> > > prepared a new download for "my" personal files as a workaround for the
> > > build system problems. There you will find "my" version. Bill is
> > > preparing that for cvs to, if the merge is done with actual head. The
> > > version compiles also under 4.3.0 of gcc which cvs will not!
> > This means that sometime in the near future,
> > the cvs version will catch up to your local files?