RE: [avr-gcc-list] Patch avrtest: add support for avr6

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tristan Gingold [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:14 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Weddington, Eric
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Patch avrtest: add support for avr6
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> > If a flag is added, I would prefer that we keep the flag naming
> > consistent between all the tools when possible. AVR GCC 
> uses the flag
> > -mmcu=<device>, where <device> can be a named AVR device in  
> > lowercase or
> > "architecture" like "avr6".
> >
> > Upon review, I'd be ok with '-m arch' too.
> 
> Why not -mmcu=<dev> or -m arch.
> I don't think we should support AVR devices as we only 
> support cores,  
> not IOs.

I agree that only archs need to be supported. I was originally thinking
that it would be nice if -mmcu=<dev> with a devicename could be
supported and then the device name would just be mapped into the
relevant architecture. The devicename could also be the arch name as
well, like it's done in avr-gcc. But I didn't want to take advantage of
your and Adacore's goodwill in helping to add support for all this. :-)
I'll leave it up to you as to the extent you want to provide.

> 
> Ok.
> Which architecture should we support ?
> avr2/25/3/31/35/4/5/51/6 ?

Ideally, in the future, all archs. But I know that that will take some
time. The ATmega128 is the "canonical" AVR device that everyone seems to
do basic testing with, or compare results to. IIRC, it currently falls
under the avr51 architecture.

In the end, we all appreciate the help that you're doing in extending
the capabilities of this tool.

Eric