Developing/compiling software
in [Embedded]
|
From: Chris H on 24 Sep 2009 13:55 In message <h9g855$4vg$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> writes >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. > So you don't email from your work account either..... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Grant Edwards on 24 Sep 2009 14:48 On 2009-09-24, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > In message <h9g855$4vg$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards >>> 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. > > So you don't email from your work account either..... When I'm dealing with customers, vendors, or anything regarding products of my employer, I do. For miscellaneous usenet postings containing my personal opinions, I don't. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! MMM-MM!! So THIS is at BIO-NEBULATION! visi.com
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 24 Sep 2009 18:52 ChrisQ skrev: > Chris H wrote: > >> >> If that were the case there would be a problem but so far most of the >> open source compilers are no where near as good as the top commercial >> ones. >> > > I'm sorry, but you need to be more specific in terms of *how* they are > better. You're not selling soap powder to the 19th c unwashed here. If > we are discussing Keil, it's not so much the compiler, but the linker, > which seems to do magic in terms of it's overlay analysis and ability to > make use of constrained ram and xdata space. A btter solution might have > been to do more work upfront in terms of design and cpu choice to avoid > the problem in the first place. Great for legacy hardware but not > necessarily relevant if you're starting from scratch. > > So what else is there and how about other vendors and architectures. > What's so inferior about the gnu toolchain, for example ?. > The GNU toolchain can be OK, and it can be horrible. If you look at ST's home page you will find some discussion about performance of GCC-4.2.1 on the STM32. The rumoured 90 MIPS becomes: wait for it... 32 MIPS... With a Keil compiler you can reach about 60-65 MIPS at least with a 72 MHz Cortex-M3. Anyone seen improvement in later gcc versions? .... On the AVR I noted things like pushing ALL registers when entering an interrupt. The IAR is simply - better - . The gcc compiler can be OK, as shown with the AVR32 gnu compiler. BR Ulf Samuelsson >> >>> means a diminishing client base and less money for development. Unless >>> they can come up with a revised business model, they seem condemned to >>> niche markets and long term decline. If you want evidence, compare the >>> diversity of tool vendors a decade ago with the same now. >> >> True... So eventually programmers will be expected to produce their own >> tools and RTOS on their own time at their own expense. > > Some already do :-), but that's taking the argument to absurd limits. Of > course, you write some tools over the years, but buy in the stuff that > would be uneconomic to develop yourself. One of the great strengths of > open source is that it shares the cost and time to develop complex > applications among the many with the result available for all to use. It > potentially brings together resources that would be not possible for > individual companies. > >> >> Who funds these open source programmers? They have to eat. > > Some people are still altruistic, believe it or not and do it for fun or > the intellectual challenge while keeping their day job. Others want to > be remembered for contributing something for the common good, rather > than merely for commercial gain. Any number of reasons. Not to say that > there's not serious money involved now. IBM, Hp / Compaq and many others > fund development and the likes of Redhat, Code Sourcery and Kpit Cummins > package up the results to sell and provide support. > > The truth is that the marketplace for tools has changed forever. How > will traditional tool vendors like Keil and IAR survive in the long > term ?. > >> >> The problem is the main users of the open source tools are not the ones >> who are producing them... >> > > How is this a problem ?... > > Regards, > > Chris
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 24 Sep 2009 18:57 ChrisQ skrev: > Grant Edwards wrote: > >> >> In my experience the producers of open-source tools _do_ use >> them. It's just that not all of the users are producers. >> > > The best example must be gcc, where each new generation will be compiled > by the previous one. > >> >> IMO, the problem is even worse for commericial tools where it's >> quite obvious that in many cases the producers do not (nor have >> they ever attempted to) use the tools. >> > > None of the commercial tools i've used have been really bad. They all > compile code and seem to have few bugs. Even the older stuff (>10yrs) > more or less did what it said on the tin, but by the time you get all > the costs, lack of trust, dongles and flexlm hassles onboard, they can > turn into a real can of worms totally unrelated to tool quality. It's > not the tools that are the problem, but sometimes the attitude of the > vendors, imho. > > Anyway, the open source stuff, where available, is often as good or > better for all practical purposes. There's no real reason not to use it > and the open source model of cooperative development is arguably more > suited to the mindset of many users. You just have to do some of the > legwork yourself... If you are designing products which are produced in large volumes you have to look at the code generation of open-source vs commercial because you can save a lot of money, by selecting another chip with less memory. BR Ulf > > Regards, > > Chris
From: Chris H on 25 Sep 2009 03:19
In message <h9geue$7el$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> writes >On 2009-09-24, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> In message <h9g855$4vg$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards > >>>> 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. >> >> So you don't email from your work account either..... > >When I'm dealing with customers, vendors, or anything regarding >products of my employer, I do. When officially representing the company >For miscellaneous usenet postings containing my personal >opinions, I don't. And neither do the TI employees You are complaining they do exactly what you are doing -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |