Re: [avrdude-dev] [patch #8967] Change ft2xx library to ftdi_syncbb instead of libusb

[Rene Liebscher]

   Hi,
   just another idea.
   Would it be possible to put a new programmer into a shared library and
   load it as plugin into avrdude? Then you probably had to define some
   function register_programmer() in the plugin and either link it against
   avrdude or libavrdude or provide same table of function pointers to be
   used by the plugin.
   This way it could be maintained separately from avrdude and may be it
   could even use some other proprietary libraries?
   René

   Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden>schrieb:

     As Didrik Madheden wrote:
     > I think there is a point to having an official binary with support
     > FT2xx. It would be for the benefit of exactly those who don't have
     the
     > skill or time to build their own avrdude.
     Well, I already find it quite ironic that there's apparently nobody
     else but me who is willing to contribute Win32 binary builds for
     AVRDUDE. --- Me, who I doesn't use Windows at all, and who
     cross-compiles them under FreeBSD in a MinGW32 environment.
     I thus figure, the demand for even a diversity of Win32 builds must
     be
     small enough that nobody feels bothered to do it. C'mon, compiling a
     pile of source code is not rocket science. It's just installing a
     bunch of tools, and running them. One doesn't even have to
     understand
     a single line of the source code for that.
     > You could conditionally load DLLs on demand using
     > the LoadLibrary API function, instead of statically linking them.
     > Avrdude could handle missing libraries gracefully instead of
     failing
     > with an OS error message that a DLL is missing before avrdude even
     has
     > a chance to run.
     This requires a major restructuring of the code.
     Right now, the ability to compile against certain libraries, and
     thus
     enable various pieces of code (or not), is detected by configure,
     and
     the code adapts to it using #ifdef.
     With your suggestion, all code needs to be compiled, pretending the
     library existed on the target platform (which would, at the very
     least, require those librarie's header files being present at
     compile
     time), and then dynamically decide which modules can be offered to
     the
     user and which can't.
     I'm not opposed to that, provided 1) someone (not me!) actually
     implements it, 2) that someone also implements the Posix dlopen()
     counterpart (so all non-Windows platforms would gain the same
     functionality), and 3) that someone tests the entire stuff against
     at
     least the more important programming adapters. Certainly, that
     magically someone would not be left alone for the job, however,
     she'd
     have to be the driving force for implementing and testing it.
     --
     cheers, Joerg .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
     [1]http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
     Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
     _______________________________________________
     avrdude-dev mailing list
     address@hidden
     [2]https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev

References

   1. http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
   2. https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev