Compiling ER9X Under Windows

[Rob Thomson]

Hi All

For a while I have been rather irritated by the fact that when I compile under windows certain utilities do not function as expected against the windows tools. This problem is further exasperated by the fact that windows does not by default have a 'bash' shell meaning you have to replace the 'build' script with a batch file.

I now have a 100% perfect solution in place.

Here is what you need to do.
Download and Install WinAVR http://winavr.sourceforge.net/
Download and Install Ruby http://rubyinstaller.org/
Download and Install CygWin http://www.cygwin.com/

Now - Look for this folder:
C:\WinAVR-20100110\utils\bin (path may be different on your system)

Locate the file called 'egrep.exe' and rename it to 'egrep.bak'.

Next:
We need to add the cygwin utils to the OS path.

This can be done as follows under Window7/Vista.
Click on the Start Menu
In the run box type 'systempropertiesadvanced.exe'
Click the 'Advanced Tab'
Click the button at the bottom of the page called 'Environent Variables'
Edit the variable called 'Path'
Add the following: 'C:\cygwin\bin' (e.g.: Other Paths In Var;C:\cygwin\bin)
Click ok and close all windows.

Job done.

Now.. all we need to do is to run the build scripts using 'bash'.

So..

Open up a bash shell. Start->Run [bash]

Change to your 'build folder' ... and you a ready to compile.

Everything works 100% as per the unix compile options.

Have fun!

Rob

[ReSt]

This is my solution on Windows XP:

Prereqs (AFAIK) :
I have installed WinAVR-20100110, AVRStudio4 (v.4.18 SP3), Ruby-1-9-2-p0 and TortoiseSVN (V 1.6.10)
(When installing Ruby, you have to select 'Add Ruby executables to your path' and 'Assiciate .rb and .rbs files with this Ruby installation')

I use SVN to always download a full release into its separate subdirectory e.g. r582, r646, ...


Disadvantage of the original makefile is, it uses egrep that fails on my system and it always creates a new stamp file with a new version number and the actual compilation date

So you loose the link to the original version and date of the code.


Therefore I have modified the makefile, naming it MyMakefile that I start with my batch file MakeMe.bat

MyMakefile uses grep instead of egrep, and that works on my system and it does not create a completely new stamp file.

Instead of, it uses the first five lines of the original stamp file and only modifies the last line, that displays the modifications like NOH or ARDU ...

This way I always get a new stamp file with the original version number and time stamp, but with my actually used compile options.


I can compile the code by double clicking MakeMe.bat. It opens a DOS window and runs the compiles.
My MakeMe.bat runs two compilations, one with options NMEA, NOH and the next with NMEA, NHT.
Every compilation is started with a 'make clean' and when done it copies the created file into the source folder of the version (as usual).
Last command used in the batch file is Pause, so the window stays open and I can check the protocol for possible errors.


Reinhard

[Rob Thomson]

Have you tried the er9x-builder script I made?

Does some fancy stuff to make the compile look pretty!

[ReSt]

No, I havn't used it, because it doesn't run on my Win XP (or I don't know how to )

I need new compilations only when I 'play around' with modifying the NMEA code.
So I don't need every possible version to be newly compiled, only a very limited number of versions.


Reinhard

[MikeB]

I had a hunt around and found suitable bash.exe (renamed to sh.exe), egrep.exe and grep.exe (can't remember where I got the from!). I put these in the C:\WinAVR-20100110\utils\bin directory, then the standard makefile just works. I could post these if required (zip file is 1.5Meg).

Mike.

[ReSt]

Thanks, would be nice to have.

Reinhard

[MikeB]

Try unzipping this into your WinAVR-20100110\utils\bin directory, back up existing files of the same name first.
Then see if a build under windows works fine.

wbuild.zip

(1.21 MiB) Downloaded 463 times

Mike.

[DLONE]

Hi all,

I'm new here so I take the change to say hi to all!

I have a propably stupid question... I try to compile the firmware, by just to use make all command. Everithing is seems to be fine, but, the generated hex file is not identical with the file is included in the main deirectory of the project. I downloaded the latest build, r742. I could not figure out how to compile to get the files identical.... This fact makes me head each.... Is there any explanation for that? Or even better, some solution?

Or is it so easy, you guys using linux, and under windows the generated binaries will not identical with the linux compiled ones???

Thanks for any advice,

Laci

[MGeo]

Open script file "domake" in root directory to see the flags needed to build individual hex versions.

Example from "domake" for FRSKY:

echo
echo "===== Making FRSKY Version ====="
echo ">>> cleaning"
make clean
echo ">>> making"
make EXT=FRSKY TEMPLATES=NO
echo ">>> moving"
mv er9x.hex ../er9x-frsky.hex

[erazz]

You're not going to get an identical file when compiling under windows.
There are going to be differences in the stamp file most likely.

It shouldn't matter. It should still work fine.

[DLONE]

Thank you both for the answer!

I can imagine the difference likely in the stamp file... but the problem is, the generated hex files terrible different.
Is still ok?

Anyway, it is sure I make something stupid, I beleive... I do like this:

- Installed WINAVR, path varibles properly set.
- downloaded the rev. 742.
- went to cmd
- changed the work directory to root\src
- make clean
- make all
Compared the root\er9x.hex against the root\src\er9x.hex => one part of the code is identical, an other more or less identical, but the rest is almost different.

Is it possible, the windows version generates totally different code? At least I would like to know.

In fact, I'm totally newby to AVR programming, and the open source tools as well, so I can not say I understood exactly how the tools working, but on project homepage there is a guide to compile under windows, so I tougt it is straightforward... but seems not to be.

If I do as above, is that the right way? And if I do that way, what domake file does??

Thanks for the any help, and if you have any recommended reading, please share with me.
Thanks,
Laci

[MikeB]

I compile under windows, it generally produces the same code, but since the stamp file is generated as part of the compile there is always some difference. In particular, the stamp file may be a different size, this will cause the hex file to be a slightly different size, but also most of the addresses in the code will be different making it appear very different.
The best test is to load it on a 9x and try it, if it doesn't work (it should), just put the release version back on.

Mike.

[DLONE]

MikeB,

Thank you for the answer!

Ok, I see. In fact my 9x is not modified yet for reflashing, I will do it soon, as the time allows.
I just wont this question make clear, before I do anything, this is why I spend a lot of time on this.
But if you say, tought the differences in hex file it still have to be ok, then I relax.

Just to make my soul easy, could you please compile the original .hex file for rev 472, and post here, then I could compare with my result. Are them indetical, then I will be relaxed.. Of course only if your time allows and you have the mood..
Thanks in advance!

Laci

[erazz]

If it compiles without errors then you won't have any problems. Don't go comparing files.... It really leads no where. Just go right ahead and flash the FW. As long as you don't change the fuses you will not hurt your radio.

[MikeB]

Even if I did compile it, it would be different, my system puts my name in the stamp file so we know I built it. As Erazz says, go with your build.

Mike.

[DLONE]

Erazz, Mike,

Thanks for your reply!
Ok, I got it, I will not worry then. You guys know the way, I'm just a newcomer in AVR programming and to ER9X development.

@Erazz, this is not the radio I worry about, this is the functionality, repeatability... Just to filter out one possible error source. But ok, I understand, there is no way for that in this case.

Thanks again for the help, and most importantly for the nice firmware!
Sould it happend, I coming with some brilliant idea, then I will tell it..

Keep going with the nice work!

Laci

[ReSt]

I compile the code regularily under Windows (Xp SP2) and it works. Due to your posts, I compared a er9x.hex file from the repository with a er9x.hex file that I compiled on my PC.
They are really different, even though I maintain the original stamp file.
So as stated above, if the files compile without errors, there probably will be no problem with them.

I for myself have modified the Makefile (--> MyMakefile) to retain the first five lines of the stamp file and only add/replace the modifications, that go into the last line.
I call 'MyMakefile' from a batchfile (-->'make_me.bat'). This file contains all required commands (make ... clean, make ... parameters, copy er9x.hex -> xxxx.hex).

So I simply double click the batchfile and my 2 or 3 versions are compiled without manual intervention.

Reinhard

[MikeB]

OK, I just did a svn checkout of r742, and a clean build keeping the same stamp file. The standard version of er9x I built is 56178 long, the info in the make.log file shows 56306.
I'm using WINAVR-20100110.
I don't know what version of the compiler Erazz is using.

Mike.

[erazz]

I'd have to check but it's the current one from the Ubuntu repositories...

[DLONE]

Hi Mike,

Thanks a lot. My standard version regarding the log file is:
Program: 56178 bytes (85.7% Full)

I did not really understood, how to interpret your info in the log file shows 56306.... What is 56178 then? Sorry if I asked one more stupid question...

Laci

[MikeB]

The make.log file is on the er9x site, it is created every time a full build of all versions is done, so you can find their sizes from it. If you have the same size as I do, then you really don't have any problems.

Mike.

[erazz]

Not that it makes much of a difference but I'm running avr-gcc (GCC) 4.5.3.

[MikeB]

I'm using WINAVR 4.3.3. I installed it in Jan. 2010, and haven't bothered to check for a newer version since, its working - don't mess with it!

Mike.