On Thu, 21 May 2015 09:50:21 -0400
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> > One question, why the linaro
> > gcc and not https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded ?
>
> Linaro is the variant preferred by the embedded devs I'm working with,
> so in the absence of a good reason to do otherwise I went with the pat
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Dave Vandervies wrote:
> Somebody claiming to be Damien Miller wrote:
>
> > One question, why the linaro
> > gcc and not https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded ?
>
> Linaro is the variant preferred by the embedded devs I'm working with,
> so in the absence of a good reason t
Somebody claiming to be Damien Miller wrote:
> One question, why the linaro
> gcc and not https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded ?
Linaro is the variant preferred by the embedded devs I'm working with,
so in the absence of a good reason to do otherwise I went with the path
of least resistance.
-
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:38 AM Damien Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2015, Dave Vandervies wrote:
>
> > GCC configured as a cross-compiler for arm-none-eabi for embedded
> > development, accompanied by binutils, gdb, and newlib.
> > This is based on the old (gcc 4.4) arm-elf port, with the versi
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Dave Vandervies wrote:
> GCC configured as a cross-compiler for arm-none-eabi for embedded
> development, accompanied by binutils, gdb, and newlib.
> This is based on the old (gcc 4.4) arm-elf port, with the versions of
> the tools brought up to date and a GCC option parsing b
