Hi Al !

Indeed long time no hear...
I'm sincerely pleased we're on the same wavelength here, as in the
TRF post as well.

B rgds
Kris



> Now I agree with you again! T3 was crap compared
to the others
>
> Al
>
> microbit wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> >
> >
> >>Patrick,
> >>
> >>As Arnie says, "I have extensive files..."
> >>
> >
> >
> > To be a nitpicker, the line actually is :
> > " I have detailed files ..."
> >
> > (BTW, were you initially dissapointed with T3 as I was ?
> > That's what happens when you take James Cameron out of the
> > equation ! )
> >
> > -- Kris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> > .
>
>

Now I agree with you again! T3 was crap compared to the others

Al

microbit wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> 
> 
>>Patrick,
>>
>>As Arnie says, "I have extensive files..." 
>>
> 
> 
> To be a nitpicker, the line actually is :
> " I have detailed files ..."
> 
> (BTW, were you initially dissapointed with T3 as I was ?
> That's what happens when you take James Cameron out of the
> equation ! )
> 
> -- Kris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

Hi Paul,

> Well, I don't watch it that much.

I recently had a Terminator craving so I treated myself
with viewing T1/T2 again, hence the recollection :-)

The only main flaw that bothered me is that Stan Winston claimed in an
interview that "all Terminators (model 101) look the same", hence why
Arnie re-appears in T2.
Yet in T1 when a Terminator infitrates the "underground shelter",
it's a different dude.
I guess Cameron didn't know yet in 1984 just how _huge_ his feverish
revelation from
Rome was going to be :-)
It certainly kickstarted his career and others (Gale Anne Hurd etc).

Big movie buffs here, can't you tell ? :-)

T3 seems to grow on me a bit, Jonathan Mostow is a good director,
but the whole thing seems to just screw about for too long at the start to
middle part of the story, maybe just the script...

> I was disappointed with T3.  Not much of anything
in it, it's just T2
> warmed over with a girlie instead of a bloke and a bigger CGI budget.
> The kids enjoyed it, it's the only Terminator film they've seen.

Maybe it's also because ILM's CGI in T2 was such a huge quantum leap
back then compared to T3, dunno.

-- Kris

Hi Kris, 

> Hi Paul,
> 
> 
> > Patrick,
> > 
> > As Arnie says, "I have extensive files..." 
> > 
> 
> To be a nitpicker, the line actually is :
> " I have detailed files ..."

Well, I don't watch it that much.

> (BTW, were you initially dissapointed with T3 as I
was ?
> That's what happens when you take James Cameron out of the 
> equation ! )

I was disappointed with T3.  Not much of anything in it, it's just T2
warmed over with a girlie instead of a bloke and a bigger CGI budget.
The kids enjoyed it, it's the only Terminator film they've seen.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors 

Hi Paul,


> Patrick,
> 
> As Arnie says, "I have extensive files..." 
> 

To be a nitpicker, the line actually is :
" I have detailed files ..."

(BTW, were you initially dissapointed with T3 as I was ?
That's what happens when you take James Cameron out of the
equation ! )

-- Kris

Paul,

what is the price for Crossworks in US dollars, and do
you have a US distributor,I could get it from?



Thanks
Tony




	
		
__________________________________
 

Code complete.  Documentation lacking.  We hope this month, but don't
bet the farm on it.

Regards,

-- Paul. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wood [mailto:robert.wood@robe...] 
> Sent: 15 September 2004 22:49
> To: msp430@msp4...
> Subject: Re: [msp430] Re: which C-compiler produces the 
> smallest code size?
> 
> 
> >>  What will the CrossWorks for AVR be ....
> 
> The AVR compiler is based on our own toolset, no GNU software 
> in the equation at all. <<
> 
> Any idea when it'll be available?
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/CFFolB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

>>  What will the CrossWorks for AVR be ....

The AVR compiler is based on our own toolset, no GNU software in the
equation at all. <<

Any idea when it'll be available?

Hi John, 

> Is the Ew430 your own compiler or is it a GCC ?

EW430 is IAR's compiler.  CrossWorks for MSP430 is our own compiler and
toolchain.

> The CrossWorks for ARM is GNU GCC.

It is.  I decided I didn't want to write an ARM code generator over
again because it's like writing two code generators (ARM and Thumb
mode).  I already wrote an ARM code generator for our Modula-2 compiler
in the 1989 timeframe, a long time before ARM became mainstream.

GCC does a much better job on ARM than on the MSP430.  There are other,
very good reasons for basing the ARM project on GCC, and it's not to
sell software...

> What will the CrossWorks for AVR be ....

The AVR compiler is based on our own toolset, no GNU software in the
equation at all.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors 

Hi Patrick. I'm certainly not attempting a flame war either, they
serve 
nobody, and lead to ill feeling in the group.

rattencremesuppe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, I'll bite.
> 
> 
>>So you think that suggesting assembler is Off topic, and not sensible? 
> 
> 
> My question was "which C-compiler produces the smallest code
size" and
> yes, suggesting assembler here is off-topic, obviously.

Your question was mot quite that, you said:-

"I'm about to start my first MSP430 project. I'll have to write a
fairly complex firmware but can only use the 60K on-chip flash.

I've used the GCC in some Linux projects and while it's a standard and
a portable solution, I suspect that commercial compilers may
outperform it w.r.t smaller code size of compiled C-code.

What compilers do you use, when code size is crucial?"

First paragraph translates. 'I don't have any experience with the 
MSP430, but am about to tackle projects that I expect might exceed the 
maximum memory available.'

AS Andreas (I think it was) suggested, a knowledge of assembler on any 
micro will usually improve your ability to write optimal C for that 
processor.

Second paragraph just translates that you are familiar with GCC, but not 
  compilers from the other vendors for the MSP430, and suspect that GCC 
is not very good at producing small code.

Your third paragraph asks which compiler we (I) use when code size is 
crucial. NOT which compiler produces the smallest code. A subtle but 
major difference.

The real answer is that if code size is crucial don't use a compiler. 
That is the answer I gave. Personally, and from many previous posts I 
believe that IAR or RAL are the two best when it comes to small code 
size and, based on bang for the buck, RAL wins hands down, however 
neither will come as close, especially for a large application, to 
assembler.

> 
> It's like asking, for example, which car uses the least amount of
> fuel, and one recommends a bicycle. Just to have a stupid analogy 
> (yes, car analogies suck, I know ;))

Not quite, it's more like, "My most important specification is fuel 
economy, because I only have $30 in my pocket, and have to drive 1000 
miles, which Humvee is the most economical?" Answer, forget the Humvee, 
buy a Prius, you'll have enough for a maccers on the way, and enough 
change left over to buy your partner a car as well.

Same for my reply, you'll have enough memory left over to add a quick 
game of pong, or space invaders  to the code, and enough money left over 
to buy a laptop to play it on.

> 
> 
>>The ONLY rational reason for refusing to consider assembler in a size 
>>constrained application, where you feel that using a compiler will 
>>possibly exceed available memory is the lack of confidence to take 
>>advantage of it.
> 
> 
> There are reasons why I have to use C in this project.
> 
> If I'm running short of flash space, I can still re-code big functions
> in assembler. But I want to do this only as the last resort, because
> there are other requirements as well (development time,
> maintainability, portability) for which C is better suited than assembler.

The old chestnuts. I reckon that, with a typical design project, from 
initial enquiry to delivered product I'm faster your average bear, the 
code will be highly maintainability, and the protability issue is a myth.

C was simply NOT designed with micros in mind, and, despite being a so 
called standard there are so many implementation issues left open that 
no two compilers are wholly compatible. The number of posts  starting 
"How do I do X in this compiler..." that you meet in every newsgroup, 
for every family is testament to the absolute lack of portability 
between different C compilers, and often between different versions of 
the same compiler.

Finally though I do understand that there are many misguided clients out 
there, convinced by their lack of knowledge that C will solve all their 
problems. ME? at the end of the day its faster to debug my code than 
someone elses.

> 
> Sorry, I didn't want to start a flame war here ;)

Never! It happens, and, when it comes to C vs asm isssues its normally 
myself, aided and abetted by Jon, on many occasions, who takes up the 
banner for asm. It's an old saw horse, and one repeated in all news 
groups, once again, often to the annoyance of many. And it can seem a 
bit religious. For my part I have always hated the fads that pervade 
this industry, and feel that often people are denying themselves the 
opportunity to learn new and valuable skills as a result of dogma. Thus 
I rail against it.

Believe me if someone could produce a C compiler that prodcued code that 
was within 1 or 2% of the size and speed of my hand coded stuff I'd go 
buy it right away. (I don't mean the typical, code me this equation 
challenge, I mean produce me this application). The simple fact is that 
there is nothing that C gains you, or any other language for that 
matter, that can't be done in assembler. the problem is few people are 
taught those skills these days, and learning them is often too expensive 
time wise.

Cheers

Al