Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote: [...re: links to archived copies of eVC++3...]
That said, I guess that supporting eVC4 is a smart move anyway, so thanks for working on that!
No problem; it was quicker getting a build with eVC++ 4 than finding the links to eVC++ 3 (esp. after you count the time I spent poking around my own machines looking for that archived copy ;)).
[..]
Feedback welcome.. I'd like to eventually check this in so the next lurker into that part of the tree doesn't have to go searching for tools that aren't published anymore.ARMV4 name is confusing (b/c of ARMv4 instruction set). Note that all other toolchain templates use the same names already, so I think it's better to use plain "ARM" (etc) for eVC4 too.
I agree that it's confusing, but unfortunately the names of the targets have changed in eVC++4 and "ARM" is not a target name it recognizes anymore (were it not for this, I probably would have been able to get away with just a change to the existing templates), so to get a buildable project you have to use ARMV4 (or ARMV4I or ARMV4T).
It looks like the NWO there *is* to align the eVC++ target name with the instruction set being emitted, since besides the ARM split, the generic "MIPS" target has been split into "MIPS16", "MIPSII" and "MIPSIV" with the latter two also having _FP variants.
--rafal