Searching \ for '[AVR] WIN AVR' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page:
Search entire site for: 'WIN AVR'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
2005\11\24@201044 by Russell McMahon

What is the general opinion of WIN AVR?
Stable. Useful. Comparison with for-money products?
Code size relative to xxx.
Comparison with other available languages (BASIC, ...)?

The price is right :-)

       Russell McMahon

2005\11\24@205339 by Chen Xiao Fan


>What is the general opinion of WIN AVR?
>Stable. Useful. Comparison with for-money products?
>Code size relative to xxx.
>Comparison with other available languages (BASIC, ...)?
>The price is right :-)
>        Russell McMahon

We almost moved to AVR last year and I started to monitor the
AVR-GCC list. Luckily we did not do that. Microchip is still
a much better company to deal with than Atmel for small business
customers. Anyway I still continue to monitor AVR-GCC list.

I have not used any AVR yet but my colleagues in Berlin use
AVR exclusively for quite sometime even though they may have
to move to Silicon Labs C8051F or PIC because of supply problem.

Anyway, from my perception, AVR-GCC is very stable. It is very
useful. Its code size compares favorably with the best (IAR C),
maybe with the exception of floating point which may have some
bugs and maintenance problem (I think one of P+F colleague in
Mannheim wrote the original floating pointing library but I
think he is using IAR C at work). The AVR-GCC community is quite
helpful. Signal to noise ration of AVR-GCC related list is very
good and all the OT stuff will be thrown out. Interestingly the
lead developers are using FreeBSD and Windows, not Linux.
AVR-GCC is so good that the AVR port of SDCC is never finished.
SDCC is now concentrating with 8051 and PIC14/16 port.

I do not know about Bascom AVR. I guess AVR-GCC will be much
better in compiling efficiency.

The potential problem may be the documentation which is generally
lacking for most of the open source programs.


2005\11\28@070811 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face

>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>Sent: 25 November 2005 01:08
>To: PIC List
>Subject: [AVR] WIN AVR
>What is the general opinion of WIN AVR?
>Stable. Useful. Comparison with for-money products?
>Code size relative to xxx.
>Comparison with other available languages (BASIC, ...)?
>The price is right :-)

I have almost completed my first AVR project using a Mega 128 and WINAVR/GCC.  Initialy I disliked it because it's optimisation is poor in a few areas, especialy compared to HiTech's offerings which I have been using for years. e.g. a trival (and common) operation such as setting a bit within a multi-word variable takes something like 12-15 instructions rather than the 1 or 2 it should take.

However, the raw speed of the AVR means that my usual paranoia over wasted cycles was not really justified.  Compared to the PIC I was able to write some very clean, well abstracted code and still have plenty of cycles in hand.  Also, it's optimisation is generaly very good.

So far I've not come across any actual bugs in the compiled code which is a pleasant change.  The AVR Freaks forum provides pretty good support.  The latest version AVR Studio also supports GCC properly, so you can use it as a full blown IDE, though it's simulator and debugger still seem to have the occaisional problem with the .elf files generated by WINAVR (and it takes an eon to load a big elf file, a minute or so on my lowly P3 work machine.)



This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or

2005\11\28@211924 by Josh

picon face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I had problems with the WINAVR because I was a beginner and it will blow
up your stack if youre not careful.  An irq will push like a dozen+
bytes onto the stack, and its generally a stack-glutton.  I redid that
project in assembly to run much tighter and not blow the stack anywhere.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...