I used to play drums in a heavy metal band,  I mainly got the gig 
because I was already into building some out there sound effects systems 
(my drumming was on  a par with Animals), that meant I got to play 
action man with the girls. I was born into the era of peace and free 
love, and made the very most of it.

Al

Darren Logan wrote:

>i used to play wiv action MAN and dream abowt gerls
>
>(".)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: augusto einsfeldt [mailto:aee@aee@...]
>Sent: 07 April 2005 15:35
>To: msp430@msp4...
>Subject: OT RE: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>
>6800 was my first micro, just before Z80.
>In fact I hated any kind of micro because I saw them as black boxes where
>someone else did create his own instructions ans architecture - and I wanted
>to make my own. So, for several years, while teenager, I did play around
>designing and building my own CPUs with standard TTL chips or drawing them
>and simulating by hand (no computers that time, and no money to buy CPUs).
>It was funny to find that the very same scheme I was using to clock my
CPU's
>sections (giving one clock per instruction) were being used by
Morotola's
>68000 few years later. Because lack of money my fastest CPU was a bit-slice
>one (one bit at a time - in fact).
>Great time there. 
>Today I do still playing around now with FPGAs and soon (I hope) building my
>own silicon.
>So, no one here did grew up. If I do it I die.
>-Augusto
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Onestone [mailto:onestone@ones...] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:06 AM
>To: msp430@msp4...
>Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>
>augusto einsfeldt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>When Al suggested a possible way doing this would be sitting in front 
>>of source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long

>>time ago I used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all 
>>compilation by mind in a way that at some point I could think only in 
>>opcodes, no more mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could 
>>be done while walking. Cheers, -Augusto
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>See, that's the only difference between us. You grew up and I
didn't! 
>(Though I hated the Z80, I loved the 6502 and 6809).
>
>Al
>
>
>
>.
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

I never had such feelings about microprocessors. I had predicted their 
emergence a few years before hand, and couldn't wait to get hold of one.

Al

augusto einsfeldt wrote:

>6800 was my first micro, just before Z80.
>In fact I hated any kind of micro because I saw them as black boxes where
>someone else did create his own instructions ans architecture - and I wanted
>to make my own. So, for several years, while teenager, I did play around
>designing and building my own CPUs with standard TTL chips or drawing them
>and simulating by hand (no computers that time, and no money to buy CPUs).
>It was funny to find that the very same scheme I was using to clock my
CPU's
>sections (giving one clock per instruction) were being used by
Morotola's
>68000 few years later. Because lack of money my fastest CPU was a bit-slice
>one (one bit at a time - in fact).
>Great time there. 
>Today I do still playing around now with FPGAs and soon (I hope) building my
>own silicon.
>So, no one here did grew up. If I do it I die.
>-Augusto
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Onestone [mailto:onestone@ones...] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:06 AM
>To: msp430@msp4...
>Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>
>augusto einsfeldt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>When Al suggested a possible way doing this would be sitting in front 
>>of source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long

>>time ago I used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all 
>>compilation by mind in a way that at some point I could think only in 
>>opcodes, no more mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could 
>>be done while walking. Cheers, -Augusto
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>See, that's the only difference between us. You grew up and I
didn't! 
>(Though I hated the Z80, I loved the 6502 and 6809).
>
>Al
>
>
>
>.
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

i used to play wiv action MAN and dream abowt gerls

(".)


-----Original Message-----
From: augusto einsfeldt [mailto:aee@aee@...]
Sent: 07 April 2005 15:35
To: msp430@msp4...
Subject: OT RE: [msp430] performance calculation



6800 was my first micro, just before Z80.
In fact I hated any kind of micro because I saw them as black boxes where
someone else did create his own instructions ans architecture - and I wanted
to make my own. So, for several years, while teenager, I did play around
designing and building my own CPUs with standard TTL chips or drawing them
and simulating by hand (no computers that time, and no money to buy CPUs).
It was funny to find that the very same scheme I was using to clock my
CPU's
sections (giving one clock per instruction) were being used by Morotola's
68000 few years later. Because lack of money my fastest CPU was a bit-slice
one (one bit at a time - in fact).
Great time there. 
Today I do still playing around now with FPGAs and soon (I hope) building my
own silicon.
So, no one here did grew up. If I do it I die.
-Augusto


-----Original Message-----
From: Onestone [mailto:onestone@ones...] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:06 AM
To: msp430@msp4...
Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation



augusto einsfeldt wrote:

>When Al suggested a possible way doing this would
be sitting in front 
>of source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long 
>time ago I used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all 
>compilation by mind in a way that at some point I could think only in 
>opcodes, no more mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could 
>be done while walking. Cheers, -Augusto
>
>  
>
See, that's the only difference between us. You grew up and I
didn't! 
(Though I hated the Z80, I loved the 6502 and 6809).

Al



.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 6/4/2005
 



.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 

6800 was my first micro, just before Z80.
In fact I hated any kind of micro because I saw them as black boxes where
someone else did create his own instructions ans architecture - and I wanted
to make my own. So, for several years, while teenager, I did play around
designing and building my own CPUs with standard TTL chips or drawing them
and simulating by hand (no computers that time, and no money to buy CPUs).
It was funny to find that the very same scheme I was using to clock my
CPU's
sections (giving one clock per instruction) were being used by Morotola's
68000 few years later. Because lack of money my fastest CPU was a bit-slice
one (one bit at a time - in fact).
Great time there. 
Today I do still playing around now with FPGAs and soon (I hope) building my
own silicon.
So, no one here did grew up. If I do it I die.
-Augusto


-----Original Message-----
From: Onestone [mailto:onestone@ones...] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:06 AM
To: msp430@msp4...
Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation



augusto einsfeldt wrote:

>When Al suggested a possible way doing this would
be sitting in front 
>of source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long 
>time ago I used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all 
>compilation by mind in a way that at some point I could think only in 
>opcodes, no more mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could 
>be done while walking. Cheers, -Augusto
>
>  
>
See, that's the only difference between us. You grew up and I
didn't! 
(Though I hated the Z80, I loved the 6502 and 6809).

Al



.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 6/4/2005
 

augusto einsfeldt wrote:

>When Al suggested a possible way doing this would
be sitting in front of
>source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long time
ago I
>used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all compilation by mind
>in a way that at some point I could think only in opcodes, no more
>mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could be done while walking.
>Cheers,
>-Augusto
>
>  
>
See, that's the only difference between us. You grew up and I
didn't! 
(Though I hated the Z80, I loved the 6502 and 6809).

Al

Bruno,
Yes and No.
You are right if you are using it in emulation mode (running in the device)
since emulation machine in the MSP has no cycle counter.
But if you are using it in the simulation mode you have cycle counter
allways, kickstart included.
Since the idea is to measure how long a routine takes using simulation is
the best and faster way (you don't need to implement special anciliary
routines or schemes to measure it in realtime - a thing impossible to do
when you are already using all resources in a device).
Other way to do this, in real life, is to set a port bit in the beggining of
the routine and clear that bit in the end. A regular osciloscope will give
the answer, not very accurate but the precision is fixed, no matter the
length of the routine.

When Al suggested a possible way doing this would be sitting in front of
source's listing and counting by hand it did remind me that long time ago I
used to programm a Z80 in hexadecimal by hand, doing all compilation by mind
in a way that at some point I could think only in opcodes, no more
mnemonics. It was funny, timming optimizations could be done while walking.
Cheers,
-Augusto



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Galli [mailto:bruno.galli@brun...] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:11 AM
To: msp430@msp4...
Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation



Augusto,

I checked again and it doesn't works in run mode. Well, not in the
kickstart

version of IAR.
SLAU138A, FET User's Guide, states at page A-11, FAQ #28: " The cycle 
counter is only active while single stepping. The count is reset when the 
device is reset, or the device is run (GO)."

Cheers,
br1

-----Messaggio Originale----- 
Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@aee@...>
A: <msp430@msp4...>
Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 16.02
Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation


>
> No, you can set a breakpoint in the end of your code, run it free and 
> subtract the total cycle counter from the value you had in the 
> beggining of the code.
> Of course you cannot have ISR handlings during the execution or your end
> counting will be different.
> -Augusto
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Galli [mailto:bruno.galli@brun...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:40 AM
> To: msp430@msp4...
> Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>
> Augusto,
>
> am I missing something or it works only in single stepping mode?
>
> Cheers,
> br1
>
> -----Messaggio Originale-----
> Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@aee@...>
> A: <msp430@msp4...>
> Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 15.30
> Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>>
>> IAR's C-Spy debugger has a cycle counter (in the Register's
window). 
>> You can
>> use it in a simulation mode and, using break points, carefully run your
>> filter once, getting how many cycles were used from that counter.
>> Don't know if other tools have similar feature.
>>
>> -Augusto



.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 6/4/2005
 

michelqv wrote:
> The cycle count works in run mode, but only for
the simulator. This is
> true of all MSP430 development tools, AFAIK. The chip does not have an
> internal cycle counter, so the only way to count cycles is either to
> execute the instructions one by one through JTAG, or to simulate them
> (or to count them in your head, if you live in Oz...)

Another trick is to toggle an output pin at the beginning and end of the 
code segment you're interested in and measure the pulse length with a
scope.

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

You're right.
I'm used to work with real micro so I never look at the simulator.
Thanks Michel.

Cheers,
br1

-----Messaggio Originale----- 
Da: "michelqv" <michel@mich...>
A: <msp430@msp4...>
Data invio: gioved7 aprile 2005 13.21
Oggetto: [msp430] Re: performance calculation


>
>
> The cycle count works in run mode, but only for the simulator. This is
> true of all MSP430 development tools, AFAIK. The chip does not have an
> internal cycle counter, so the only way to count cycles is either to
> execute the instructions one by one through JTAG, or to simulate them
> (or to count them in your head, if you live in Oz...)
>
> Michel

The cycle count works in run mode, but only for the simulator. This is
true of all MSP430 development tools, AFAIK. The chip does not have an
internal cycle counter, so the only way to count cycles is either to
execute the instructions one by one through JTAG, or to simulate them
(or to count them in your head, if you live in Oz...)

Michel

--- In msp430@msp4..., "Bruno Galli" <bruno.galli@g...> wrote:
> Augusto,
> 
> I checked again and it doesn't works in run mode. Well, not in the
kickstart 
> version of IAR.
> SLAU138A, FET User's Guide, states at page A-11, FAQ #28: " The
cycle 
> counter is only active while single stepping. The
count is reset
when the 
> device is reset, or the device is run (GO)."
> 
> Cheers,
> br1
> 
> -----Messaggio Originale----- 
> Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@t...>
> A: <msp430@msp4...>
> Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 16.02
> Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation
> 
> 
> >
> > No, you can set a breakpoint in the end of your code, run it free
and
> > subtract the total cycle counter from the
value you had in the
beggining 
> > of
> > the code.
> > Of course you cannot have ISR handlings during the execution or
your end
> > counting will be different.
> > -Augusto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno Galli [mailto:bruno.galli@g...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:40 AM
> > To: msp430@msp4...
> > Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation
> >
> >
> >
> > Augusto,
> >
> > am I missing something or it works only in single stepping mode?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > br1
> >
> > -----Messaggio Originale----- 
> > Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@t...>
> > A: <msp430@msp4...>
> > Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 15.30
> > Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation
> >
> >
> >>
> >> IAR's C-Spy debugger has a cycle counter (in the
Register's
window).
> >> You
> >> can
> >> use it in a simulation mode and, using break points, carefully
run your
> >> filter once, getting how many cycles were
used from that counter.
> >> Don't know if other tools have similar feature.
> >>
> >> -Augusto

Augusto,

I checked again and it doesn't works in run mode. Well, not in the
kickstart 
version of IAR.
SLAU138A, FET User's Guide, states at page A-11, FAQ #28: " The cycle 
counter is only active while single stepping. The count is reset when the 
device is reset, or the device is run (GO)."

Cheers,
br1

-----Messaggio Originale----- 
Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@aee@...>
A: <msp430@msp4...>
Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 16.02
Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation


>
> No, you can set a breakpoint in the end of your code, run it free and
> subtract the total cycle counter from the value you had in the beggining 
> of
> the code.
> Of course you cannot have ISR handlings during the execution or your end
> counting will be different.
> -Augusto
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Galli [mailto:bruno.galli@brun...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:40 AM
> To: msp430@msp4...
> Subject: Re: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>
> Augusto,
>
> am I missing something or it works only in single stepping mode?
>
> Cheers,
> br1
>
> -----Messaggio Originale----- 
> Da: "augusto einsfeldt" <aee@aee@...>
> A: <msp430@msp4...>
> Data invio: mercoledi 6 aprile 2005 15.30
> Oggetto: RE: [msp430] performance calculation
>
>
>>
>> IAR's C-Spy debugger has a cycle counter (in the Register's
window).
>> You
>> can
>> use it in a simulation mode and, using break points, carefully run your
>> filter once, getting how many cycles were used from that counter.
>> Don't know if other tools have similar feature.
>>
>> -Augusto