RE: [sdcc-devel] Thinking about a z80 release

[Sandeep D. <san...@wi...>]

Hi Michael

Yes providing binaries HAS to be done.. other than the
download time.. there are those users who want to 
try out the compiler but don't because they have to build
it... so providing binaries separately is a very very good idea

Sandeep
-----Original Message-----
From: sdc...@li...
[mailto:sdc...@li...]On Behalf Of Michael Hope
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 9:10 AM
To: sdc...@li...
Subject: RE: [sdcc-devel] Thinking about a z80 release


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I think Iam ready for a release too some minor optimizations
> added.. more importantly some nasty bugs fixed.... will try
> to get something together next week. What will it take to
> get z80 port working out-of-the-box ?? Is it a lot of work ?

By out of the box I mean seperate linux and win32 tarballs that "just
work" like gbdk has at the moment.  I have a Makefile for gbdk that could
be quite easilly modified to target the z80 instead of the gb - one
approach is that I make it compile the whole of sdcc as well instead of a
subset as it currently does.

One question is do we want to distribute a binary kit seperatly from the
source tarball?  The current gbdk binary kits only have the binaries,
includes, docs, and a precompiled version of the libs.  This cuts the
archive down greatly to about ~550k from ~2MB, while still making the
source available to those who want it and have the extra bandwidth.

- -- Michael


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5KApGUejL3SuzxEgRAkpcAJ44dHlacyBE+W8Ajz4Nno3sX4Jf3gCgrKhP
OkTBfstcI5yGAGiOeP78sss=
=Qct7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
sdcc-devel mailing list
sdc...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/sdcc-devel