This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Library file extensions

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: SYSBIOS, CC2650

Hallo,

on my way to find out, how to do a build using just make and gcc, I've started with a main() function that contains just a call to ICall_init(). I compiled and linked the ICAll library and now have to resolve symbols like "ti_sysbios_knl_Clock_Params__init". While I was searching for the right library files, I realized that TI is using different file extensions. For example:

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/catalog/arm/cortexm3/lm3init/lib/Boot.aem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/catalog/arm/cortexm4/tiva/ce/lib/Boot.aem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/fatfs/lib/release/ti.sysbios.fatfs.aem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc13xx/CC13xx/sysbios.aem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc13xx/golden/CC13xx/sysbios.aem3

...

or 

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc13xx/CC13xx/rtos_rom.xem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc13xx/golden/CC13xx/rtos_rom.xem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc26xx/CC26xx/rtos_rom.xem3

./tirtos_simplelink/products/bios_6_42_00_08/packages/ti/sysbios/rom/cortexm/cc26xx/CC26xx/rtos_rom_syms.xem3

...

Is there a documentation, where I can lookup the meaning of the file extensions and what schema is used to name the library, so that I'm able to pick the libraries that I need? (cc2650; GATT Server)

TIA,

Torsten

  • Hi Torsten,

    We only support development on our supported IDEs, the TI CCS compiler and IAR IDE for now.

    Best wishes
  • Sad to hear, that so much vendors try to lock developers into there own copy of GCC/Eclipse :-( The last bigger project I was involved in, contained 4 different micro controllers from 3 different vendors (Nordic, ST and Infineon). It would have been a pain if we would have to use 3 different flavors of windows with 3 different compilers or even worse: would have to use a 3 different IDEs to use the compilers. Being able to build a project with a simple checkout and build command is crucial to be able to have automatic tests and high and reproducable quality.

    What I can not understand, why is an IDE the smallest supported tool? Shouldn't be a compiler and linker be the minimum? From that point adding an IDE on top of that very basic tooling would be easy. And it would allow bigger software projects to use tools that are more appropriate.

    Sorry for the rant.