[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [avr-gcc-list] Experimental WinAVR/avr-gcc update for

From: Brian Cuthie
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] Experimental WinAVR/avr-gcc update for
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:22:27 -0400

So what is the relationship between Atmel and IAR? I mean I downloaded
the eval copy of IAR's product, and I was entirely unimpressed. I'd
probably like it more if the compiler integrated into the AVR Studio 4.

Maybe I'll just write a decent IDE for the AVR, since I haven't seen one
that I like yet.


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Sander Pool
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:50 PM
To: 'avr'
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Experimental WinAVR/avr-gcc update for 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E. Weddington" <address@hidden>
> (Interestingly, according to the unscientific survey at AVR Freaks, 
> more people use GCC than any other AVR compiler.)

Yes but what percentage of shipped AVRs run code that was compiled with
gcc vs. that with IAR? I'm willing to bet that less than 25% of all AVR
revenue comes from chips that run gcc. Once you're paying someone a
decent salary to code your product it isn't a large step to spend a few
thousand $ on tools. Guys like me (and probably quite a few of you) buy
only a handful of AVRs per year. Of course I wouldn't buy any if it
weren't for avr-gcc :-)

As sad as it us for us, it makes sense for Atmel to stay close to IAR.


avr-gcc-list mailing list
address@hidden http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]