Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: David Kelly <n4hhe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:59:02 -0500
In article <WMxAg.42352$Nt.39355@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"mc" <look@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does AVR Studio
cooperate fully with normal Windows security practices, or does it, too,
require you to loosen security on the computer in order to run it?
I stay as far away from Windows as I can, so I can't say that I've
looked deep enough at AVR Studio to answer your question. But I can say
that the Atmel team appears to be trying harder than the Microchip folks
at providing development tools. And unlike Microchip its actually
practical to code and debug an AVR without Windows.
AVR-gcc is a very good compiler. The packager of WinAVR (avr-gcc for
Windows) is now an Atmel employee. See above about "trying harder."
I realize in an academic environment at least one stage of the learning
process one stays limited to assembler. Once students get used to
assembler it can be enlightening for them to study the output of a C
compiler. I looked a lot at the output of avr-gcc. It never wrote
assembly that I could improve enough to justify the effort to rewrite in
assembly. Once or twice I changed a C expression for better assembly
output.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: mc
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- From: larwe
- Re: PIC versus AVR
- References:
- PIC versus AVR
- From: mc
- PIC versus AVR
- Prev by Date: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by Date: Re: ATmega 128 + driver ENC28j60
- Previous by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Next by thread: Re: PIC versus AVR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|