Developing/compiling software
in [Embedded]
|
From: Chris H on 21 Sep 2009 05:24 In message <1fvcb51mrf4o6o1ai4dcrf09aalgjl6kd8(a)4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> writes >On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:18:42 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >wrote: > >>>Someday, we should meet and have lunch. >> >>I know who to have a s a referee. >><snip> >>...and mix with people a bit more > >Ironic, coming after suggesting you'd need a referree to meet. It was a recommendation from people who know you. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 21 Sep 2009 05:34 In message <n4tcb5lbk7m7stpqrfkmvhfje8ut4gebth(a)4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> writes >On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:19:13 +0200, "Lodewicus Maas" ><wicus.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>In the country I'm living - PIC's are really hard-to-get ,and at a price. I >>started looking at Ebay and found the cheapest option available which can >>give me 32 I/O ports, and the best offers I could get was on the AT89S52, >>and this is how I ended up with the ATMEL product >> >>I definately agree with a few posts that PIC might be easier and maybe >>cheaper, but like I said, I had to look at availability/price first, and now >>I must move on to the next step, which is compiling the code I already >>written over the past 2 months - without having any compiler or hardware. My >>programmer arrived on Friday and as soon as I made up my mind on a >>compiler, then I can test(compile) the code which is currently only in a >>.txt file, and hope there is no compilation errors. >> >>My AT89S52's should arrive within the next 2 weeks, and only then will I see >>if the past 3 months was a total waste of time. >> >>Thank you for all the input >>Much Appreciated >>Lodewicus Maas > >Best of luck. The AT89 is a fine chip for some uses. I'm not sure >why you haven't tried to compile the code, though. As Chris has >mentioned, there are demo versions of commercial c compilers that are >available. There are demo version of the Keil and IAR. Though I would suggest Keil in this case as a first stop. It is the one area where they really specialise. >And besides that, there is SDCC which you could also do >some trial compilations with. Not worth the effort. Start with Keil > I'm not sure if the Keil IDE can do >this (it may work, just fine) but Silicon Labs has an IDE as well for >their 8051 core cpus and their IDE (and SiLab's web site discusses >this in an appnote) can integrate SDCC into it, so you should be able >to run some tests that way. T Again not worth the effort. This is a lot of work for a system that will not even come close to Keil >here are some slight differences in >syntax for ports, if I recall, but that's also documented. At least >you could have tested for compilation before receiving parts. The Atmel stuff will be set up to compile with the Keil extensions. You will have to port for the SDCC. BTW there are some very cheap dev kits with the 4K version of the Keil. However.... The code size limit is not the killer here. It is the DATA space. As Keil does aggressive data overlaying in the DATA space you can get it to compiler programs that the SDCC can't get to fit in the space. I have seen cases where 119 bytes of DATA was compiled into 23 bytes of DATA space. So in that case the SDCC would run out of space and the 2K eval Keil will compile and run the app. That is without the optimisation of the code the Keil can do compared to the SDCC. Then there is the fact the Keil is VERY heavily tested compared to the SDCC and WILL do what it says. The you have the fact that most companies, like Atmel, write their code to be Keil compliant (not SDCC compliant) As Jon pointed out changing development teams can have an effect. Whereas the Keil has had a single team all the way though SDCC has AFAIK changed complete development teams several times. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Jon Kirwan on 21 Sep 2009 17:26 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:34:49 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <n4tcb5lbk7m7stpqrfkmvhfje8ut4gebth(a)4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan ><jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> writes >>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:19:13 +0200, "Lodewicus Maas" >><wicus.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>In the country I'm living - PIC's are really hard-to-get ,and at a price. I >>>started looking at Ebay and found the cheapest option available which can >>>give me 32 I/O ports, and the best offers I could get was on the AT89S52, >>>and this is how I ended up with the ATMEL product >>> >>>I definately agree with a few posts that PIC might be easier and maybe >>>cheaper, but like I said, I had to look at availability/price first, and now >>>I must move on to the next step, which is compiling the code I already >>>written over the past 2 months - without having any compiler or hardware. My >>>programmer arrived on Friday and as soon as I made up my mind on a >>>compiler, then I can test(compile) the code which is currently only in a >>>.txt file, and hope there is no compilation errors. >>> >>>My AT89S52's should arrive within the next 2 weeks, and only then will I see >>>if the past 3 months was a total waste of time. >>> >>>Thank you for all the input >>>Much Appreciated >>>Lodewicus Maas >> >>Best of luck. The AT89 is a fine chip for some uses. I'm not sure >>why you haven't tried to compile the code, though. As Chris has >>mentioned, there are demo versions of commercial c compilers that are >>available. > >There are demo version of the Keil and IAR. Though I would suggest Keil >in this case as a first stop. It is the one area where they really >specialise. > >>And besides that, there is SDCC which you could also do >>some trial compilations with. > >Not worth the effort. Start with Keil ><snip> >Again not worth the effort. This is a lot of work for a system that will >not even come close to Keil I think it took me a half hour to follow the instructions. >>here are some slight differences in >>syntax for ports, if I recall, but that's also documented. At least >>you could have tested for compilation before receiving parts. > >The Atmel stuff will be set up to compile with the Keil extensions. You >will have to port for the SDCC. True. But it's been minor issues so far, in comparing them. Some of the differences are talked about in the SiLabs appnote. >BTW there are some very cheap dev kits with the 4K version of the Keil. >However.... > >The code size limit is not the killer here. It is the DATA space. As >Keil does aggressive data overlaying in the DATA space you can get it to >compiler programs that the SDCC can't get to fit in the space. > >I have seen cases where 119 bytes of DATA was compiled into 23 bytes of >DATA space. So in that case the SDCC would run out of space and the 2K >eval Keil will compile and run the app. > >That is without the optimisation of the code the Keil can do compared to >the SDCC. > >Then there is the fact the Keil is VERY heavily tested compared to the >SDCC and WILL do what it says. > >The you have the fact that most companies, like Atmel, write their code >to be Keil compliant (not SDCC compliant) > >As Jon pointed out changing development teams can have an effect. >Whereas the Keil has had a single team all the way though SDCC has AFAIK >changed complete development teams several times. The OP has yet to say what this is all about and money may yet be an issue. Hard to say. SDCC is probably not the direction to head if you are expecting the kind of sole-source support phone numbers and email you get when you lay down some cash. No doubt. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 21 Sep 2009 17:29 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:24:59 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:24:32 GMT, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:18:42 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>wrote: >> >>>>Someday, we should meet and have lunch. >>> >>>I know who to have a s a referee. >>><snip> >>>...and mix with people a bit more >> >>Ironic, coming after suggesting you'd need a referree to meet. Still, >>I'm sure you meant this last part in a positive way so I'll just say >>you shouldn't worry. Just met with my Representative over lunch, a >>few days ago, for example. Plenty on my plate in that regard. No pun >>intended. >> >>Jon >> >>P.S. I'd still think it would be helpful to others if you'd expand >>even slightly on your earlier comment about SDCC. I'm curious and I >>did check to see what I could find about what few words you offered, >>found something that seemed close, and if so it seems to be a bit out >>of date. > >It was a recommendation from people who know you. Obviously, not as well as you imagine. In any case, this whole thrust of yours is little other than an attempt at being personal. Which is exactly how you started with your responses here, again. Rather than dealing with a direct question, the answer to which may help others if you'd cared to. Oh, well. Jon
From: Lodewicus Maas on 23 Sep 2009 04:00
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. |