Lionel DebrouxLe 20/09/2009 à 17:12
Thanks for your input 
1) the main roadblock in dropping the TIGCC/GCC4TI-specific IDE is that there are many, many IDEs on various platforms
Otherwise, it's a fact that the IDE embedded in TIGCC/GCC4TI has few distinctive capabilities (not all of which are universally considered as features: for example, the ability to compile unsaved files, which, besides being different from what pretty much all other IDEs - and SCMs anyway - do, yields a mess in the design and implementation of the build system), and lacks the extensibility of most other IDEs.
2) yeah, it's a fact that my address/value hacks are of very little practical use nowadays. They still made some sense when I created them, but, uh, that was in 2001-2003 (!). I recently added support for MIN_AMS == 301 and 310 in GCC4TI.
1) the main roadblock in dropping the TIGCC/GCC4TI-specific IDE is that there are many, many IDEs on various platforms
Otherwise, it's a fact that the IDE embedded in TIGCC/GCC4TI has few distinctive capabilities (not all of which are universally considered as features: for example, the ability to compile unsaved files, which, besides being different from what pretty much all other IDEs - and SCMs anyway - do, yields a mess in the design and implementation of the build system), and lacks the extensibility of most other IDEs.
2) yeah, it's a fact that my address/value hacks are of very little practical use nowadays. They still made some sense when I created them, but, uh, that was in 2001-2003 (!). I recently added support for MIN_AMS == 301 and 310 in GCC4TI.