|
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:54:25 +0200 (MET DST), Michael Haertl wrote: >which "make utility" do you use (just interested) ? I'm using the one that comes with Borland's compiler, just because it's what I used for the previous target and the macros are set up for it. It does have its share of bugs and idiosyncracies, though, so I may eventually port the makefiles to something else. >around this. cc21k is not based on gcc (as g21k was). I realize that. My reference to gcc was due to my observation that cc21k is not really a compiler but a front-end to a compiler tool chain. This is the same architecture used classically by Unix tool chains, so I figured if I look at how gcc handles translator selection, I could then go back and look at cc21k to see if it has an equivalent switch. The ADI tools seem particularly unhappy with a non-standard extension, and this isn't limited to the compiler front-end. If I use a .DOJ extension for object files (the extension used by g21k), the linker objects. I had to go through my makefiles and make the object extension a macro to handle this. The top of my makefile (actually, a make include file) selects a compiler based on an environment variable and sets various macros based on the selected compiler. One of the "compilers" is actually the database builder for CCRider (http://www.westernwares.com), my visual source browser. Another developer here reports that cc21k is not very good at reporting C errors, so I expect to be adding Gimpel's PC-Lint to the list of "compilers". Kenneth Porter Kensington Laboratories, Inc. mailto: http://www.kensingtonlabs.com |
Re: VisualDSP and other tools
Started by ●June 18, 1999
