I agree what you mention are valuable reasons.
and I don't have time either :(

Why not file a GSoC project to enhance this port LOL?


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Jan Waclawek <wek@efton.sk> wrote:
Value of AVR port of SDCC would be the significantly higher flexibility of SDCC than GCC, in more then one aspect.

While avr-gcc one one side enjoys the massive investment of various companies into GCC, e.g. through the aggressive early optimisations, it also suffers from GCC being targeted primarily at "big" processors, e.g. through inefficiency in certain operations involving unnecessary integer promotions, lack of memory classes support, fixed pointer size (which does not fit all situations), to name just a few. It is basically impossible to get a "mere mortal's" request through to the developers; and given gcc's vast complexity it is hard to setup and maintain a homebrew fork and implement modifications into it.

So, it is true, that given avr-gcc's maturity and support from Atmel (they have paid employees working on avr-gcc, avr-libc and related projects), it is the only good choice of open-source (at least formally) and no-cost C compiler for "serious work".

However, I believe that AVR support in SDCC would provide valuable basis for experimentation. I played with the AVR backend a couple of hours, and while I see it has serious defficiencies, I am now able to compile a very simple C source (only assignments) to an avr-as (-gas) accepted form (it is still not linkable yet). I believe that with an effort of a couple of work-days (and work-nights ;-) ) I would be able to get a simple program through the whole chain. Okay, the usual problem: I don't have that time...

Jan Waclawek

Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1,  ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and  rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
Sdcc-user mailing list