Hi Ian and Morra!


Ing. Morra Antonio <antonio.morra@anto...> wrote:

> BUT one thing for sure : we do miss the separated
environment of the
> earlier version!  Being able to invoke the compiler and debugger separately
> was a plus for a professional developer! At least we feel so
> regards

You can still invoke the debugger on a file that you have built
outside the IDE.

The "trick" is to create a new project from scratch and add the
"foo.d43" file as the only file in the project, and then press the
"debug" icon.

(Come to think of it, maybe you have to disable building the project
before debugging?)


Ian Okey <ian.okey@ian....> wrote:

> Being able to invoke the make script and compiler
chain from within
> my third party editor and then use the debugger as a separate
> application made development far more efficient than the dance that
> I have to go through now.
>
> I have never understood why tool vendors insist on integrating their
> tools so closely.  If there was a command line make/project management
> utility in the tools that I could invoke from my editing environment
> then I would be more than happy.

I guess this is your lucky day -- there is such a tool and it's
included in the product.

The command "iarbuild" can build, rebuild, or clean a project.  You
still will need the IDE to set up the project and set all options, but
once that is complete you can perform the edit-compile cycle without
ever leaving your editor.

    -- Anders Lindgren, IAR Systems
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this posting are strictly my own and
not necessarily those of my employer.

I have been using the IAR toolset for a number of years.  It was the
only compiler around at the time that I started to use the '430.  We
are stuck with it now as I have to support code that has been deployed
in the field.  When Crossworks came on the scene I tried to use their
toolchain but the early beta release of the compiler did not have
sufficeint optimisation to fit my code into the device.  The later
released versions, and in particular the version available now are be
more than capable.  The only reason that we did not migrate was that
their toolchain was not available until after we had to ship product
and we could not afford the time to retest the code compiled using a
different set of tools.

While evaluating Crossworks (and also Quadravox and Imagecraft) I was
given absolutely first class support.  Always a response within hours
if my request was outside the supplier's waking hours and minutes if
they were in the office.  To contrast this with IAR support, which we
pay a considerable sum for, I do not think that I have had an
acknowledgement response within 24 or even 48 hours of me submitting a
query to them.  The last real problem that I had (V3.2 FET interface
could not program the first sector of an F149 when set to leave
unmodified flash memory as it was) took a month before IAR tried to
find the problem and another week before I was given a patch.



On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:21:30 +0200, Ing. Morra Antonio
<antonio.morra@anto...> wrote:
> 
> 
> At 17:47 12/10/2004, Lindgren wrote:
> >As of version 2, release quite some time ago, the IDE and debugger are
> >fully integrated.
> 
> BUT one thing for sure : we do miss the separated environment of the
> earlier version!  Being able to invoke the compiler and debugger separately
> was a plus for a professional developer! At least we feel so
> regards
> A_M
> 


I too really miss the separate IDE and debugger.  In common with most
IDEs that I have come across, the IAR editor is very basic.  I had
better functionality on a shareware editor back in the days of DOS 3.2
on my original IBM-xt.  Being able to invoke the make script and
compiler chain from within my third party editor and then use the
debugger as a separate application made development far more efficient
than the dance that I have to go through now.

I have never understood why tool vendors insist on integrating their
tools so closely.  If there was a command line make/project management
utility in the tools that I could invoke from my editing environment
then I would be more than happy.

Ian

At 17:47 12/10/2004, Lindgren wrote:
>As of version 2, release quite some time ago, the IDE and debugger are
>fully integrated.

Well ... we use IAR, ( a 3 seat floating full license) and we will stay 
with it. It was the only serious thing when we started professional work on 
the MSP430 and it matches very well our needs. It is high cost, but it is 
now a mature product, so we do not pay any service agreement, because  we 
stay with version 3.2 which is stable and complete enough for us, (double - 
i.e. 8byte - floating point math ) .
BUT one thing for sure : we do miss the separated environment of the 
earlier version!  Being able to invoke the compiler and debugger separately 
was a plus for a professional developer! At least we feel so
regards
A_M

ho_philip2000@ho_p... wrote:

> I am going to start a project that involves DSP,
real time
> measurements and remote data communication with DNP3.
>
> Does anyone know which compiler I should use: IAR or Crossworks C
> compiler or some other good compilers out there?  Which one is
> better suit for the job?

I agree with Paul in this case, just take them both for a test drive
and decide for yourself.

When it comes to plain C they are quite similar -- of course the IAR
Embedded Workbench also supports (Embedded) C++.



Robert Wood <robert.wood@robe...> writes:

> In terms of functionality, the two are pretty
similar (although the
> Crossworks IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a separate window
> for debugging like IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited)
> experience is pretty similar.

As of version 2, release quite some time ago, the IDE and debugger are
fully integrated.

    -- Anders Lindgren, IAR Systems
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this posting are strictly my own and
not necessarily those of my employer.

Hi,

> If the most important criterion is cost, the
Crossworks would win hands down. 
> If you are interested in fast support, then Crossworks still wins hands
down. 

> In terms of functionality, the two are pretty
similar (although the Crossworks 
> IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a separate window for debugging
like 
> IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited) experience is pretty 
> similar.  

> I used the IAR one for a while when it was the
only one that was available, 
> and have now used Crossworks. Even if money was no object, I would still
now 
> plump for the Crossworks IDE.

I fully support all Robert has said.
I myself too have used IAR for a few years when it was the only tool out there.
I've been using CrossWorks since its very first days as well.

I really can't see any reason to use IAR, unless you have money to burn.
It might be worth noting the following :

1) Make sure that you understand that you will pay 20% of your purchase
    every year when you go IAR to receive "free upgrades", unless that
has changed.
    When I bought my IAR tools, I was never told about that until I had paid.
    (I had several clients of mine complain about this topic, it borderlines
deception)

2) Should there be any bugs, expect to wait as much as 6-9 months for a fix
    with IAR, or at least that's how it used to be.

3) If the 20% / year fee still stands ("SUA"), you can just about buy
a full unlimited
    license of CrossWorks for the same money - and a whole lot more IDE for it
...

Everyone has their own taste, so like Paul said, try the eval first and make a
weighted
decision.
At least you have a wide choice to suit your budget, when I started on MSP430
the
compiler filed was barren ......

B rgds
Kris

Take a look at the AQ430.  It's IDE and debugger is friendly and 
complete and it's code generation good.  It supports global 
registers for high performance bit flags which I think is unique in 
the industry (although I haven't looked in a while, others may have 
that feature now.)  The price performance is outstanding!  Just IMHO.

Quadravox and Archelon do a superb job at support; rarely is a 
question not answered within a few hours.  (When does Michel 
sleep?)  I've been using it for the past 17 months to develop 
communications controllers, RF modems and packet 
assembler/disassemblers with great results.

Chris 

--- In msp430@msp4..., "ho_philip2000" <ho_philip2000@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the info. But does Crossworks support "Real Time 
> Debugging" such as trace buffers etc. and "Source Code
Level" 
> Symbolic Debugging?  
> 
> I know IAR also has the "visualSTATE" that works with the
compiler 
> for Code Generation right from the UML design stage.  Have anyone 
> using it? Are they useful for embedded development? Does 
Crossworks 
> support similar features? 
> 
> Any feedback/response are wellcome.
> 
> 
> --- In msp430@msp4..., Robert Wood <robert.wood@a...> 
wrote:
> > >>  I am going to start a project that involves DSP, real time 
> >  measurements and remote data communication with DNP3. 
> >  
> > Does anyone know which compiler I should use: IAR or 
> > Crossworks C compiler or some other good compilers out there? 
> > Which one is better suit for the job?  <<
> > 
> > If the most important criterion is cost, the Crossworks would 
win 
> hands down. 
> > If you are interested in fast support, then Crossworks still 
wins 
> hands down. 
> > 
> > In terms of functionality, the two are pretty similar (although 
> the Crossworks 
> > IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a separate window for 
> debugging like 
> > IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited) experience is 
> pretty 
> > similar.  
> > 
> > I used the IAR one for a while when it was the only one that was 
> available, 
> > and have now used Crossworks. Even if money was no object, I 
would 
> still now 
> > plump for the Crossworks IDE.

Hi,

Just want to throw my $0.02 in (or rather $395), but there are more 
than two MSP430 IDEs that support source level debugging, and EEM 
debugging. And the price range is rather wide.
For a list of all third party vendors (and free trial versions), you 
can go to 
http://focus.ti.com/mcu/docs/generalcontent.tsp?
familyId42&templateIdR46&navigationId482&path=templatedata/cm/m
cugen/data/msp430_3p_swtools


Michel

--- In msp430@msp4..., "ho_philip2000" <ho_philip2000@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the info. But does Crossworks support "Real Time 
> Debugging" such as trace buffers etc. and "Source Code
Level" 
> Symbolic Debugging?  
> 
> I know IAR also has the "visualSTATE" that works with the
compiler 
> for Code Generation right from the UML design stage.  Have anyone 
> using it? Are they useful for embedded development? Does Crossworks 
> support similar features? 
> 
> Any feedback/response are wellcome.
> 
> 
> --- In msp430@msp4..., Robert Wood <robert.wood@a...> wrote:
> > >>  I am going to start a project that involves DSP, real time 
> >  measurements and remote data communication with DNP3. 
> >  
> > Does anyone know which compiler I should use: IAR or 
> > Crossworks C compiler or some other good compilers out there? 
> > Which one is better suit for the job?  <<
> > 
> > If the most important criterion is cost, the Crossworks would win 
> hands down. 
> > If you are interested in fast support, then Crossworks still wins 
> hands down. 
> > 
> > In terms of functionality, the two are pretty similar (although 
> the Crossworks 
> > IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a separate window for 
> debugging like 
> > IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited) experience is 
> pretty 
> > similar.  
> > 
> > I used the IAR one for a while when it was the only one that was 
> available, 
> > and have now used Crossworks. Even if money was no object, I 
would 
> still now 
> > plump for the Crossworks IDE.

Hi,

> Thanks for the info. But does Crossworks support
"Real Time 
> Debugging" such as trace buffers etc.

It supports the EEM that is in the chip itself.  There is no more unless
you go for a full, expensive ICE.  If you're running on a F15x or F16x
chip, you'll find an 8-deep trace buffer in the EEM, which is supported
by CrossWorks and IAR.

> and "Source Code Level" 
> Symbolic Debugging?  

If we didn't do this, we couldn't call it an IDE.  You can open up
registers windows, step at the instruction level, put breakpoints at the
source level, open up a Globals or Locals window, add to the watch
windows, look at the call stack, and...

> I know IAR also has the "visualSTATE"
that works with the 
> compiler for Code Generation right from the UML design stage. 
>  Have anyone using it? Are they useful for embedded 
> development? Does Crossworks support similar features? 

If this is your bent, go to IAR--but it's only for developing state
machines last time I looked, and doesn't compete with Rational (as was)
Rose for instance, which I have used.  Personally, I don't like any
"prigramming by pictures" tools.  I found Rose an absolute nightmare,
it
kept of crashing.  That's more an indictment of the tool than UML.
Having actually been *paid* to design with UML in a team of six, I can
say that it's not an experience I want to have again.  We went through
object models, design reviews, getting stuff signed off by the customer
which took ages, and software round-tripping--when the s*it hit the fan,
we dumped all that and just coded the thing using experience ("ACCEPT NO
SUBSTITUTE").  Lots of time wasted on "doing it right" when the
customer
couldn't afford to "do it right" neither with cash nor time--they
thought they could, but they were mistaken.

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

Thanks for the info. But does Crossworks support "Real Time 
Debugging" such as trace buffers etc. and "Source Code Level" 
Symbolic Debugging?  

I know IAR also has the "visualSTATE" that works with the compiler 
for Code Generation right from the UML design stage.  Have anyone 
using it? Are they useful for embedded development? Does Crossworks 
support similar features? 

Any feedback/response are wellcome.


--- In msp430@msp4..., Robert Wood <robert.wood@a...> wrote:
> >>  I am going to start a project that
involves DSP, real time 
>  measurements and remote data communication with DNP3. 
>  
> Does anyone know which compiler I should use: IAR or 
> Crossworks C compiler or some other good compilers out there? 
> Which one is better suit for the job?  <<
> 
> If the most important criterion is cost, the Crossworks would win 
hands down. 
> If you are interested in fast support, then
Crossworks still wins 
hands down. 
> 
> In terms of functionality, the two are pretty similar (although 
the Crossworks 
> IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a
separate window for 
debugging like 
> IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited)
experience is 
pretty 
> similar.  
> 
> I used the IAR one for a while when it was the only one that was 
available, 
> and have now used Crossworks. Even if money was no
object, I would 
still now 
> plump for the Crossworks IDE.

>>  I am going to start a project that involves DSP, real time 
 measurements and remote data communication with DNP3. 
 
Does anyone know which compiler I should use: IAR or 
Crossworks C compiler or some other good compilers out there? 
Which one is better suit for the job?  <<

If the most important criterion is cost, the Crossworks would win hands down. 
If you are interested in fast support, then Crossworks still wins hands down. 

In terms of functionality, the two are pretty similar (although the Crossworks 
IDE is more integrated - doesn't open a separate window for debugging like 
IAR) and end code size in my (admittedly limited) experience is pretty 
similar.  

I used the IAR one for a while when it was the only one that was available, 
and have now used Crossworks. Even if money was no object, I would still now 
plump for the Crossworks IDE.