Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded Subject: Re: Improving build system Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 11:12:23 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 307 Message-ID: <1006vho$3miqf$1@dont-email.me> References: <1001m9t$2drv1$1@dont-email.me> <100338u$2c42e$1@dont-email.me> <1004all$3218k$1@dont-email.me> <1005m3f$3aqfb$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 11:12:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73d891a72f05717b4fcf9043c40a17ba"; logging-data="3885903"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0Lc++ZJJOynGCxpVL3KDr4Gx8DWtLn0o=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:3/ZKxHXpOgOiCWk/NbuP1ykWnPo= In-Reply-To: <1005m3f$3aqfb$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 14267 On 15/05/2025 23:25, pozz wrote: > Il 15/05/2025 11:03, David Brown ha scritto: >> On 14/05/2025 23:51, pozz wrote: >>> Il 14/05/2025 11:03, David Brown ha scritto: >>>> On 13/05/2025 17:57, pozz wrote: >>> [...] > > I worked on PIC8 and AVR8 and IMHO AVR8 is much better then PIC8. > Regarding Cortex-M, SAM devices are fine for me. The 8-bit PIC's are extraordinarily robust microcontrollers - I've seen devices rated for 85 °C happily running at 180 °C, and tolerating short-circuits, over-current, and many types of abuse. But the processor core is very limited, and the development tools have always been horrendous. The AVR is a much nicer core - it is one of the best 8-bit cores around. But you are still stuck working in a highly device-specific form of coding instead of normal C or C++. And you are still stuck with Microchip's attitude to development tools. (You can probably tell that I find this very frustrating - I would like to be able to use more of Microchip / Atmel's devices.) >>> >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> You don't need to use bash or other *nix shells for makefile or >>>> other tools if you don't want to.  When I do builds on Windows, I >>>> run "make" from a normal command line (or from an editor / IDE).  It >>>> is helpful to have msys2's usr/bin on your path so that make can use >>>> *nix command-line utilities like cp, mv, sed, etc.  But if you want >>>> to make a minimal build system, you don't need a full msys2 >>>> installation - you only need the utilities you want to use, and they >>>> can be copied directly (unlike with Cygwin or WSL). >>>> >>>> Of course you /can/ use fuller shells if you want.  But don't make >>>> your makefiles depend on that, as it will be harder to use them from >>>> IDEs, editors, or any other automation. >>> >>> In the beginning (some years ago) I started installing GNU Make for >>> Windows, putting it in c:\tools\make.  Then I created a simple >>> Makefile and tried to process it on a standard Windows command line. >>> It was a mess!  I remember there were many issues regarding: >>> slash/backslash on file paths, lack of Unix commands (rm, mv, ...) >>> and so on.  Native Windows tools need backslash in the paths, but >>> some unix tools need slash.  It was a mess to transform the paths >>> between the two forms. >>> >> >> Most tools on Windows are happy with forward slash for path separators >> as well. > > mkdir, just to name one?  And you need mkdir in a Makefile. > Don't use the crappy Windows-native one - use msys2's mkdir. As I said: bin_path := RM := $(bin_path) rm MKDIR := $(bin_path) mkdir and so on. Now your makefile can use "mkdir" happily - with forward slashes, with "-p" to make a whole chain of directories, and so on. Once you have left the limitations of the Windows default command shell builtins behind, it is all much easier. For utilities like "cp" and "rm" it is a little more obvious since the names are different from the DOS leftovers "copy" and "del" - unfortunately "mkdir" is the same name in both cases. > >> Certainly everything that is originally a *nix tool will be fine with >> that. >> >> Of course if you have a makefile that uses commands like "rm" and you >> don't have them on your path, and don't specify the path in the >> makefile, then it won't work.  This is why the norm in advanced >> makefiles is to use macros for these things : >> >> # Put this in the host-specific file, with blank for no path needed >> bin_path := >> >> # Use this instead of "rm". >> RM := $(bin_path) rm > > Initially I insisted using native Windows commands: DEL, MKDIR, COPY and > so on.  Finally I gave up. > Excellent decision. > > >>> After this attempt, I gave up.  I thought it was much better to use >>> the IDE and build system suggested by the MCU manufacturer. >>> >> >> For most IDEs, the build system is "make".  But the IDE generates the >> makefiles - slowly for big projects, and usually overly simplistic >> with far too limited options. >> >> But IDE's are certainly much easier for getting started.  On new >> projects, or new devices, I will often use the IDE to get going and >> then move it over to an independent makefile.  (And I'll often >> continue to use the IDE after that as a solid editor and debugger - >> IDE's are generally happy with external makefiles.) > > I'm going to create a new post regarding editors and debugger... stay > tuned :-D You are keeping this group alive almost single-handedly :-) Many of us read and answer posts, but few start new threads. > > >>> Now I'm trying a Unix shell in Windows (msys, WSL or even the bash >>> installed with git) and it seems many issues I had are disappearing. >>> >>> >>>> And of course you will want an msys2/mingw64 (/not/ old mingw32) for >>>> native gcc compilation. >>> >>> The goal of the simulator is to detect problems on the software that >>> runs directly on Windows, without flashing, debug probes and so on. >>> I increased my productivity a lot when I started this approach. >>> >>> Obviously, the software running on Windows (the simulator) should be >>> very similar to the sofware running on the embedded target.  Cortex-M >>> MCUs are 32-bits so I thought it should be better to use a 32-bits >>> compiler even for the simulator. >>> >> >> mingw-w64 can happily generate 32-bit Windows executables.  IIRC you >> just use the "-m32" flag.  It is significantly better than old mingw >> in a number of ways - in particular it has vastly better standard C >> library support. > > Why doesn't it work for me?  I open a Msys2/mingw64 shell and... > > $ gcc -m32 -o main.exe main.c > C:/msys64/mingw64/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin/ld.exe: skipping incompatible C:/msys64/mingw64/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/libmingw32.a when searching for -lmingw32 > C:/msys64/mingw64/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin/ld.exe: skipping incompatible C:/msys64/mingw64/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.0/../../../../x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib\libmingw32.a when searching for -lmingw32 > ... > ... and much more > It looks like you don't have the 32-bit static libraries included in your msys2/mingw64 installation - these things are often optional. (It might be referred to as "multi-lib support".) I haven't used gcc on Windows for a long time - most of my work is on Linux. But I'm sure that you'll find the answer easily now you know it is the 32-bit static libraries (libmingw32.a) that you are missing. >>> >>> I guess the only goal of host_xxx.mk is to avoid changing PATH before >>> make.  Why don't you like setting the PATH according to the project >>> you're working on? >>> >> >> No, that is not the only goal - there can be many differences between >> machines.  For example, I usually have ccache on my Linux systems but >> it is rare to have it on (native) Windows systems - thus that can be >> enabled or disabled in a host_xxx.mk file.  Some machines might also >> support building the documentation, or running a simulator, or signing >> binaries. >> >> Setting the path would be an extra complication of no benefit, but a >> significant source of risk or error.  How do you make sure your IDE is >> using the right PATH settings before it runs "make"?  How do you deal >> with multiple projects - do you keep swapping PATHs?  (I usually have >> a half-dozen projects "open" at a time, in different workspaces on my >> Linux machine.)  Do you now have a makefile and a separate >> path-setting batch file or shell script that you need to run before >> doing a project build?  How do you handle things when you install some ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========