On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:09 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:28:57 -0700, the renowned SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Mine arrived today (8-May)...  Blinking happily plugged into my USB 
>>> hub...
>>> 
>>> --Gene
>>
>>Mine arrived today (May 12th).
>
>Yesterday (May 11) here in the not-so-frozen north. 

I hear they just received another 1900 of the units shortly ago --
this from a phone call I made today to talk with them about my order.
I just had two units shipped with _overnight_with_morning_delivery
FedEx shipping to my home and received them this morning.  (I had
received, mid-March, two prior ones from a different order made in
late Feb.)  I had ordered eight more though and they screwed up the
order so I was on the phone with them yesterday (and today) about it.
Looks like I'll get the next six in a week or so after they get you
folks your pieces and figure out how they messed up my order.

The two they did ship me shows a shipping form with "ordered 2,
shipped 2" which is wrong and a nice refund of money at the bottom of
it -- which is also wrong, assuming they figure things out.  The order
billed me for two units then credited me a discount for eight units
and the discount, of course, more than made up for the two units
charged.  Funny, in a way.  Except I'd like the other six to arrive.

Jon

On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:28:57 -0700, the renowned SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Mine arrived today (8-May)...  Blinking happily plugged into my USB 
>> hub...
>> 
>> --Gene
>
>Mine arrived today (May 12th).

Yesterday (May 11) here in the not-so-frozen north. 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:

> Mine arrived today (8-May)...  Blinking happily plugged into my USB 
> hub...
> 
> --Gene

Mine arrived today (May 12th).

In article <MPG.1ea6245b96c891e398976c@newsgroups.comcast.net>, 
first.last@comcast.net says...
> In article <443bce7c$0$1520$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, 
> scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
> > Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:54:01 +1000, Clifford Heath
> > > <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> SMS wrote:
> > >>> You can buy the development tool (USB 
> > >>> stick) for 1/2 price ($10), with the coupon code MS681LXD.
> > >> Ok, I give up. Where do I enter the coupon code?
> > >> ti-estore is happy to let me order at $20, but $10?
> > > 
> > > (1) Go to: http://www.ti.com/ez430
> > > (2) Click on: "Order Now!", right side of screen.
> > > (3) Click on: "Add to basket" after entering a quantity.
> > > (4) Click on: "Checkout" near top.
> > > (5) You will be asked to log on -- do so.
> > > (6) Fill out address, if it isn't already, on the 'ship to' page.
> > > (7) Click on "continue"
> > > 
> > > You will be then taken to the page which offers a "COUPON" field near
> > > the bottom on the left side and just above the two fields called "SHIP
> > > VIA" and "PAY WITH".   There is also a button called "REDEEM COUPON"
> > > adjacent and just to the right of the field where you can enter the
> > > coupon code.
> > 
> > The coupon expires on April 15th, so hurry.
> 
> ..but be aware that it's severely backordered.
> I placed my order (full price) on 25-February; I'm still waiting...
> 
> --Gene

Mine arrived today (8-May)...  Blinking happily plugged into my USB 
hub...

--Gene

i,all,BesTech is a world-class professional supplier of IC and
Diode,has more than 10

years history in China and international markets!
         BesTech is a credible IC and diode sources for your product
line, assembly line,

and brokers as well.
         BesTech is specializing obsolete , hard to find, long
lead-time parts, military,

industry , commercial, medical and transportation electronics
components!
         BesTech offers world famous brand series of electronic
components, such as: AD,

AMD, Altera, Intersil, Linear Technology, Maxim, Motorola, NS, ST, TI,
Ziglog, etc....
         BesTech is doing utmost to offer china market, international
brokers ,

manufacturers with first- hand source under the Tenet of Honesty,
Sincere cooperation,

Customer first , warm-hearted service.
         BesTech Sincerely welcome customers from various circles to
negotiate and develop

cooperations with us .Let us jointly create our success!.

 Following are some of  our hot parts:
ML2003IQ,ML2003CQ,311-1002-01,311-1011-02,311-1012-02,311-1013-40,311-1013-42,311-1013-

75,74ABT899CQC,74ACT899QC,74ACT899QL,74F899QC,74FCT899AQC,EPM7512AETC144-10,EPM7512AETC144-

12,EPM7512AETC144-7,FSA2509M,FX469LS,HD153119CP,M62301FP,M62320FP,SP301CT,SP302CT,SP303CT,
SP304CT,T7275CEL,T7504ML,TC426IJA,TC426MJA,TC427IJA,TC427MJA,TC428IJA,TC429IJA,TC4420IJA,TC4

422MJA,TC4423MJA,TC4424MJA,TC4426MJA,TC4427MJA,TC4429MJA,TC445MJE,TC4469COE,TC4469EJD,TC4469

MJD,TC500AIJE,TC900AIJA,TC900IJA,TC911AIJA,TC913IJA,TC9400EJD,TC9400MJD,TC9401EJD,TC9402EJD,
TC962IJA,TDF8704T4,
TDF8704T5,TL321CP,TLC320AC02CFN,TLC320AC02IFN,TP1321,TP4780-

02,TP485,TP4866,TSC232EJE,TSC301AL,TSC301AL/CL,TSC301BL,TSC301CJ,TSC301CL,TSC301ML,TSC302AL,

TSC302AL/CL,TSC302BL,TSC302CJ,TSC302CL,TSC302ML,TSC303AL,TSC303AL/CL,TSC303BL,TSC303CJ,TSC30

3CL,TSC303ML,TSC304AL,tsC304AL/CL,TSC304BL,TSC304CJ,TSC304CL,TSC304ML,TSC306AL,TSC306AL/CL,T

SC306BL,TSC306CJ,TSC306CL,TSC306ML,TSC311AL,TSC311AL/CL,TSC311BL,TSC311CJ,TSC311CL,TSC311ML,

TSC312AL,TSC312AL/CL,TSC312BL,TSC312CJ,TSC312CL,TSC312ML,TSC313AL,TSC313AL/CL,TSC313BL,TSC31

3CJ,TSC313CL,TSC313ML,TSC321AL,TSC321AL/CL,TSC321BL,TSC321CJTSC321CL,TSC321ML,TSC322AL,TSC32

2AL/CL,TSC322BL,TSC322CJ,TSC322CL,TSC322ML,TSC323AL,TSC323AL/CL,TSC323BL,TSC323CJ,TSC323CL,T

SC323ML,TSC324AL,TSC324AL/CL,TSC324BL,TSC324CJ,TSC324CL,TSC324ML,TSC325AL,TSC325AL/CL,TSC325

BL,TSC325CJ,TSC325CL,TSC325ML,TSC326AL,TSC326AL/CL,TSC326BL,TSC326CJ,TSC326CL,TSC326ML,TSC33

1AL,TSC331AL/CL,TSC331BL,TSC331CJ,TSC331CL,TSC331ML,TSC332AL,TSC332AL/CL,TSC332BL,TSC332CJ,T

SC332CL,TSC332ML,TSC333AL,TSC333AL/CL,TSC333BL,TSC333CJ,TSC333CL,TSC333ML,TSC334AL,TSC334AL/

CL,TSC334BL,TSC334CJ,TSC334CL,TSC334ML,TSC335AL,TSC335AL/CL,TSC335BL,TSC335CJ,TSC335CL,TSC33

5ML,TSC341AL,TSC341AL/CL,TSC341BL,TSC341CJ,TSC341CL,TSC341ML,TSC342AL,TSC342AL/CL,TSC342BL,T

SC342CJ,TSC342CL,TSC342ML,TSC343AL,TSC343AL/CL,TSC343BL,TSC343CJ,TSC343CL,TSC343ML,TSC344AL,

TSC344AL/CL,TSC344BL,TSC344CJ,TSC344CL,TSC344ML,TSC347AL,TSC347AL/CL,TSC347BL,TSC347CJ,TSC34

7CL,TSC347ML,TSC355AL,TSC355AL/CL,TSC355BL,TSC355CJ,TSC355CL,TSC355ML,TSC361AL,TSC361AL/CL,T

SC361BL,TSC361CJ,TSC361CL,TSC361ML,TSC362AL,TSC362AL/CL,TSC362BL,TSC362CJ,TSC362CL,TSC362ML,

TSC363AL,TSC363AL/CL,TSC363BL,TSC363CJ,TSC363CL,TSC363ML,TSC367AL,TSC367AL/CL,TSC367BL,TSC36

7CJ,TSC367CL,TSC367ML,TSC368AL,TSC368AL/CL,TSC368BL,TSC368CJ,TSC368CL,TSC368ML,TSC370AL,TSC3

70AL/CL,TSC370BL,TSC370CJ,TSC370CL,TSC370ML,TSC371AL,TSC371AL/CL,TSC371BL,TSC371CJ,TSC371CL,

TSC371ML,TSC372AL,TSC372AL/CL,TSC372BL,TSC372CJ,TSC372CL,TSC372ML,TSC373AL,TSC373AL/CL,TSC37

3BL,TSC373CJ,TSC373CL,TSC373ML,TSC374AL,TSC374AL/CL,TSC374BL,TSC374CJ,TSC374CL,TSC374ML,TSC3

75AL,TSC375AL/CL,TSC375BL,TSC375CJ,TSC375CL,TSC375ML,TSC380AL,TSC380AL/CL,TSC380BL,TSC380CJ,

TSC380CL,TSC380ML,TSC381AL,TSC381AL/CL,TSC381BL,TSC381CJ,TSC381CL,TSC381ML,TSC382AL,TSC382AL

/CL,TSC382BL,TSC382CJ,TSC382CL,TSC382ML,TSC383AL,TSC383AL/CL,TSC383BL,TSC383CJ,TSC383CL,TSC3

83ML,TSC390AL,TSC390AL/CL,TSC390BL,TSC390CJ,TSC390CL,TSC390ML,TSC395AL,TSC395AL/CL,TSC395BL,

TSC395CJ,TSC395CL,TSC395ML,TSC396AL,TSC396AL/CL,TSC396BL,TSC396CJ,TSC396CL,TSC396ML,TSC426CP

A,TSC427CPA,TSC427IJA,TSC427MJA,TSC428CPC,TSC429CPA,TSC445IJE,TSC575BN,TSC709AL,TSC709AL/CL,

TSC709BL,TSC709CJ,TSC709CL,TSC709ML,TSC7106IJL,TSC723AL,TSC723AL/CL,TSC723BL,TSC723CJ,TSC723

CL,TSC723ML,TSC741AL,TSC741AL/CL,TSC741BL,TSC741CJ,TSC741CL,TSC741ML,TSC7652IJA,TSC809AL,TSC

809AL/CL,TSC809BL,TSC809CJ,TSC809CL,TSC809ML,TSC844AL,TSC844AL/CL,TSC844BL,TSC844CJ,TSC844CL

,TSC844ML,TSC8701CL,TSC911AIJI,TSC914AIJD,TSC918,TSC9400CL,TSC9401CL,TSS400CFNS1,3820-0019-

00,3820-0001-1A,Access our expansive inventory quickly and easily with
the BesTech online 

search.www.bestechltd.com

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2006 18:29:50 +0100, David Brown
> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> 
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>> ... snip ...
>>>> What is much more relevant is whether the register set and
>>>> addressing modes of the msp430 really are appropriate for their
>>>> target applications, or whether they would have been better off
>>>> with the PDP-11 arrangement.  I'm far from convinced - certainly,
>>>> the example you gave (PC-relative CALL) is obscure indeed, and I
>>>> think the benefit of more registers well outweighs this missing
>>>> feature.
>>> Hardly obscure.  This, together with PC relative jumps, is what
>>> makes object code intrinsically relocatable, and I consider it a
>>> valuable feature.  Now it becomes trivial to swap code segments in
>>> and out as needed.
>>>
>> In terms of the PDP-11 (did it count as a mini or a mainframe?), making 
>> code position independent and/or relocatable is important, and greatly 
>> adds to the flexibility of the architecture.  In terms of a small 
>> embedded processor, running a single statically linked program with no 
>> paging or other virtual memory arrangements, relocatable or position 
>> independent code is irrelevant,
>> <snip>
> 
> It shocks me to read this from you.  It is patently untrue in the case
> of the MSP-430.  Position independent code is important in this case,
> as it enables a number of useful options.  One of them is being able
> to download small "programs" into the ram, allowing the downloader to
> place them as the memory allocator allows, and to execute them.
> Another is to allow flashable extensions to be downloaded.
> 

Memory allocators that move bits of program code around in ram doesn't 
sound to me like a typical situation in a small embedded system - few 
applications on an msp430 would even go as far as having a dynamic 
memory allocator for data, never mind for swapping bits of code here and 
there.  I have certainly made use of the msp430's ability to run code 
from ram - but the load address is fixed at link time (by allocating 
your flash programming functions to specific sections).  Even if you are 
re-using the ram space as data during "run" mode, and code during 
"update" mode, I'd still have the update code linked to a specific address.

There could be times when position independent code is useful (though I 
still can't think of a case when it might be the best solution on a 
typical msp430 system), so it is important that it is possible to 
generate such code.  My argument is merely that such code is so rare 
that it is wrong to add features to the cpu for optimising such code - 
the space (die space, instruction set space, power, speed, or whatever) 
is better used for more common functions.  Thus I think TI's application 
note showing suitable code sequences is a perfectly reasonable solution.

Remember, most competing micros (typically 8-bit rather than 16-bit) 
have no support for position independent code, since they have no 
support for executing code from RAM.  (It would be possible to burn the 
code into different bits of flash, but it's far from a sensible solution 
in practice.)  No one would consider the AVR to be limited by the lack 
of position independent CALL addressing modes.

> If you need objective evidence, beyond my own theory about this, you
> need only note that IAR already supports the production of position
> independent code to a degree and is involved in broadening out that
> capability in the case of the MSP-430.  That fact speaks for itself.
> 

Since it is possible to make position independent code for the msp430, 
and perhaps some people will want it (after all, some people like to use 
malloc and printf on a micro with 256 bytes ram), then there is 
absolutely nothing to lose by supporting it.  Offhand, I don't know 
whether gcc supports it or not.  But supporting it and wasting hardware 
to optimise it are two totally different things - relying on software to 
provide obscure functionality is standard practice in hardware designs.

> So you have both theory and practice to dispute your comment.
> 

I still disagree that position independent code has much use in an 
msp430 system - certainly, it is rare enough that specific hardware 
support would be wasted when there is a perfectly workable (albeit 
slightly bigger and slower) software technique.  Perhaps I have fallen 
for the temptation of extrapolating my own experiences and opinions as 
"general usage" - but perhaps you too have done so.

mvh.,

David


> Jon

On 15 Apr 2006 18:29:50 +0100, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

>CBFalconer wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>> ... snip ...
>>> What is much more relevant is whether the register set and
>>> addressing modes of the msp430 really are appropriate for their
>>> target applications, or whether they would have been better off
>>> with the PDP-11 arrangement.  I'm far from convinced - certainly,
>>> the example you gave (PC-relative CALL) is obscure indeed, and I
>>> think the benefit of more registers well outweighs this missing
>>> feature.
>> 
>> Hardly obscure.  This, together with PC relative jumps, is what
>> makes object code intrinsically relocatable, and I consider it a
>> valuable feature.  Now it becomes trivial to swap code segments in
>> and out as needed.
>> 
>
>In terms of the PDP-11 (did it count as a mini or a mainframe?), making 
>code position independent and/or relocatable is important, and greatly 
>adds to the flexibility of the architecture.  In terms of a small 
>embedded processor, running a single statically linked program with no 
>paging or other virtual memory arrangements, relocatable or position 
>independent code is irrelevant,
><snip>

It shocks me to read this from you.  It is patently untrue in the case
of the MSP-430.  Position independent code is important in this case,
as it enables a number of useful options.  One of them is being able
to download small "programs" into the ram, allowing the downloader to
place them as the memory allocator allows, and to execute them.
Another is to allow flashable extensions to be downloaded.

If you need objective evidence, beyond my own theory about this, you
need only note that IAR already supports the production of position
independent code to a degree and is involved in broadening out that
capability in the case of the MSP-430.  That fact speaks for itself.

So you have both theory and practice to dispute your comment.

Jon

In article <44411f7e$1@news.wineasy.se>, 
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > David Brown wrote:
> > ... snip ...
> >> What is much more relevant is whether the register set and
> >> addressing modes of the msp430 really are appropriate for their
> >> target applications, or whether they would have been better off
> >> with the PDP-11 arrangement.  I'm far from convinced - certainly,
> >> the example you gave (PC-relative CALL) is obscure indeed, and I
> >> think the benefit of more registers well outweighs this missing
> >> feature.
> > 
> > Hardly obscure.  This, together with PC relative jumps, is what
> > makes object code intrinsically relocatable, and I consider it a
> > valuable feature.  Now it becomes trivial to swap code segments in
> > and out as needed.
> > 
> 
> In terms of the PDP-11 (did it count as a mini or a mainframe?), making 
> code position independent and/or relocatable is important, and greatly 
> adds to the flexibility of the architecture.  In terms of a small 
> embedded processor, running a single statically linked program with no 
> paging or other virtual memory arrangements, relocatable or position 
> independent code is irrelevant, and any space (in the instruction set 
> space, or die space) used for it is wasted.  Similarly, addressing modes 
> involving double indirection might be extremely useful for implementing 
> virtual methods in an object oriented language, but very rarely used in 
> C or assembly, which are the typical languages of choice on the msp430.
> 
> I'm certainly not going to argue that the msp430 ISA would have worked 
> better for PDP-11 machines, nor that the msp430 is the ideal ISA - just 
> that it might be better for embedded applications than the PDP-11.
> 
There may be some empirical evidence to support that.  IIRC, no one
has implemented a single-chip PDP-11 that runs on   50milliwatts.  ;-)
(The PDP-11 should be a lot less, without  all those  ADCs,
SPIs, Timers and UARTS!)


Mark Borgerson

CBFalconer wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> ... snip ...
>> What is much more relevant is whether the register set and
>> addressing modes of the msp430 really are appropriate for their
>> target applications, or whether they would have been better off
>> with the PDP-11 arrangement.  I'm far from convinced - certainly,
>> the example you gave (PC-relative CALL) is obscure indeed, and I
>> think the benefit of more registers well outweighs this missing
>> feature.
> 
> Hardly obscure.  This, together with PC relative jumps, is what
> makes object code intrinsically relocatable, and I consider it a
> valuable feature.  Now it becomes trivial to swap code segments in
> and out as needed.
> 

In terms of the PDP-11 (did it count as a mini or a mainframe?), making 
code position independent and/or relocatable is important, and greatly 
adds to the flexibility of the architecture.  In terms of a small 
embedded processor, running a single statically linked program with no 
paging or other virtual memory arrangements, relocatable or position 
independent code is irrelevant, and any space (in the instruction set 
space, or die space) used for it is wasted.  Similarly, addressing modes 
involving double indirection might be extremely useful for implementing 
virtual methods in an object oriented language, but very rarely used in 
C or assembly, which are the typical languages of choice on the msp430.

I'm certainly not going to argue that the msp430 ISA would have worked 
better for PDP-11 machines, nor that the msp430 is the ideal ISA - just 
that it might be better for embedded applications than the PDP-11.

Mark Borgerson wrote:
> In article <443CFE0F.D3B04F8A@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
>> David Brown wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> What is much more relevant is whether the register set and
>>> addressing modes of the msp430 really are appropriate for their
>>> target applications, or whether they would have been better off
>>> with the PDP-11 arrangement.  I'm far from convinced - certainly,
>>> the example you gave (PC-relative CALL) is obscure indeed, and I
>>> think the benefit of more registers well outweighs this missing
>>> feature.
>>
>> Hardly obscure.  This, together with PC relative jumps, is what
>> makes object code intrinsically relocatable, and I consider it a
>> valuable feature.  Now it becomes trivial to swap code segments in
>> and out as needed.
> 
> Are you mixing up position-independent code and relocatable code?

Yes.

> When I was writing Macintosh applications in the 1980s, you could
> generate position-independent code---where ALL references were PC
> relative--or relative to a base address that was derived at
> run time.  Relocatable code was simply code that used some mechanism
> to allow a linker or loader to modify those addresses in the code
> that required adjustment depending on where the code was loaded.
> IIRC, the MAC programming conventions dedicated one processor register
> to point to a set of global variables---the phrase 'above A5'  is
> floating in the misty sea of memory.  ;-)
> 
> IIRC there were limits on the segment size of position-independent
> code probably +/- 32767 bytes away from the PC.

My p-machine avoided that by using a call table at the end of a
segment.  All the destinations were relative to the table entry,
and thus negative, thus leaving the full range available.  So call
instructions specified segment and table index value.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>