Developing/compiling software
in [Embedded]
|
From: vladitx on 24 Sep 2009 04:23 On Sep 23, 11:00 am, "Lodewicus Maas" <wicus.m...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OK. So Keil is NOT an option anymore > . > R 39,335.81 ( this is equal to 5,326.93 USD) - for a single user license Which package is that? PK51 costs more, but if don't need their RTOS and debugger, then check CA51.
From: David Brown on 24 Sep 2009 04:23 Chris H wrote: > In message <4ab9e8bc$0$26317$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se>, David Brown > <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >> Lodewicus Maas wrote: >>> OK. So Keil is NOT an option anymore >>> . >>> The Demo/Eval version can only compile up to a max of 2K - which I >>> reached already. I then requested a quote from the local suppliers of >>> Keil software, and the quote is ... >>> . >>> . >>> I hope you're sitting ... >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> R 39,335.81 ( this is equal to 5,326.93 USD) - for a single user license >>> . >>> . >>> My whole outlook on life is "value for money", and I don't invest in >>> anything if this requirement is not met, but unfortunately there is no >>> way in which I can justify this as a hobbiest >>> . >>> I'm now busy looking at ImageCraft >>> . >>> The "doors" keep on closing, but eventually I'll get there. >> ImageCraft does not make an 8051 compiler - the make (amongst others) >> an AVR compiler. >> >> For hobby use, you have two options. You can use SDCC for free, or you >> can drop all thoughts about using the 8051. > > Or use the 2K Keil or the 4K Keil if you can find one. These can > compile programs the SDCC can't. However for hobby use the Keil is > expensive but then it is not aimed at hobby users. > For hobby or small usage, you can typically just buy a device with more memory. So what if it costs a dollar more - it is easier (and therefore faster and therefore cheaper) that trying to make sure your code is within such small size limits. So what if SDCC takes 10 KB when Keil can put the same program in 6 KB - if you have a 16 KB device, it doesn't matter. Code size is not always a big issue. > for commercial use one of my customers worked out the SDCC cost them > about 5K in time and resources. So free to buy does not always mean > completely free. Though for hobby use time is free. > People are always working out figures like that. Occasionally, they will actually come up with a figure that is realistic, but even then it is not applicable to anyone else. To get true figures like that, you'd need to actually do the work in parallel with two different development teams, each of which being large enough to make valid statistical comparisons about the abilities and experiences of the two teams. No one is going to do such a comparison - at least, not for a 5K cost or saving. So the numbers are based on guestimates and figures pulled out the air. You ask a developer to look briefly at the tools and he says it will take me a week to get up to speed with Keil, and two weeks for SDCC - the bean counter concludes that Keil will save a weeks worth of development time. I don't mean to say that these numbers are wrong for the customer in question, just that for other potential users, the quote is barely worth the pixels its written on.
From: Grant Edwards on 24 Sep 2009 10:25 On 2009-09-24, David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > >> Some of the CPU vendors (Hitachi, Atmel, Altera) fund much of >> the initial gcc port and then provide support for the >> community. Unfortunately, others (like TI) appear to actively >> sabotage free tools. They don't succeed in hindering the tool >> development much, but they do manage to annoy their customers. > > It will be interesting to see how that attitude will change at > TI now that they have bought Luminary Micro and swallowed > their Cortex M3 line. > > Luminary Micro supported a broad range of compilers pretty > much equally (Keil, IAR, Code Red and CodeSourcery) with their > evaluation kits, libraries, and example software. Definitely. I played with one of their M3 eval kits, and they provided a pre-built linux-hosted gcc toolchain and they seemed very friendly towards open-source toolchains and non-MSWindows uses. > They also support FreeRTOS, uIP and lwIP (their ROM-based boot > loader uses uIP, AFAIK). > > I don't know how much of that attitude will spread from the > Luminary Micro group at TI to other groups (you're probably > thinking mainly of the msp430). Yes, I was. Their nasty attitude towards open-source JTAG debugging in particular. TI even went to the extent to plant moles in the open source community (TI employees who didn't use TI e-mail addresses when interacting with the public and attempted to hide the fact that they were TI employees.) > But for the Cortex M3 devices anyway, the idea is that the > customer gets to choose which tools suit his needs, rather > than which ones TI happens to like dealing with. The interesting thing about the MSP430 tools is that TI pushed people pretty hard towards IAR -- even to the extent that the FAEs would tell people not to use TIs CodeComposer tools but rather to use IAR's. The IAR tools themselves aren't bad, but their licensing terms suck (the usual hassles with dongles, license managers), and the only host they support is MS Windows. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! NANCY!! Why is at everything RED?! visi.com
From: Chris H on 24 Sep 2009 10:58 In message <h9fvhl$2lb$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> writes >Yes, I was. Their nasty attitude towards open-source JTAG >debugging in particular. TI even went to the extent to plant >moles in the open source community (TI employees who didn't use >TI e-mail addresses when interacting with the public and >attempted to hide the fact that they were TI employees.) My god you are sad. Most companies insist that employees use private email addresses and not company ones when conversing on newsgroups and forum lest anything they say be taken as being said on behalf of the company. Your paranoid suggestion that TI was planting "moles" is a sad reflection on you. Then again what is your email address? invalid(a)invalid.invalid Hmmm not a TI mole by any chance? OK so you do have another email address inthe sig. Tell me is Mike Sowada happy with you/visi making these accusations about TI? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Grant Edwards on 24 Sep 2009 12:52
On 2009-09-24, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > My god you are sad. Most companies insist that employees use > private email addresses and not company ones when conversing > on newsgroups and forum lest anything they say be taken as > being said on behalf of the company. We're supposed to believe that things TI employees say in regards to TI products _aren't_ being said on behalf of the company? > Your paranoid suggestion that TI was planting "moles" is a sad > reflection on you. > > Then again what is your email address? invalid(a)invalid.invalid > Hmmm not a TI mole by any chance? OK so you do have another > email address inthe sig. A futile attempt to avoid my e-mail address from being harvested mechanically. > Tell me is Mike Sowada happy with you/visi making these > accusations about TI? I don't think my ISP cares one way or the other about my opinions on TI's interaction with their customers. Neither does the post office or the phone company, in case you're curious about them. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I smell a RANCID at CORN DOG! visi.com |