>Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
>CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on my
>side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are first-hand
>experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
>
>Target: Renesas M32C with uC/OS-II. Previous experiences from me with
>TCP/IP stacks: Wind River's one, as embedded in VxWorks 5.4 (quite
>reliable, in my opinion).
>
>Thanks.
Reply by msg●April 24, 20072007-04-24
Ignacio G.T. wrote:
> Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
> CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on my
> side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are first-hand
> experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
>
> Target: Renesas M32C with uC/OS-II. Previous experiences from me with
> TCP/IP stacks: Wind River's one, as embedded in VxWorks 5.4 (quite
> reliable, in my opinion).
Can you let us know your experience with uC/TCP-IP? Were you able to
build and test it without upfront fees?
FWIW, the 'skyeye' project has ports of lwip on uC/OS-II as a starting
point for other porting efforts; I am porting it to my favorite arch
over time...
Regards,
Michael
Reply by Stephen Pelc●April 24, 20072007-04-24
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:41:25 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You know everything about your own stack, thus it is not a big deal *for
>you* to port it to any platform. However I would prefer a solution
>rather then "do it yourself" package. Why bother porting somebody else's
>stack when there is a TCP/IP native to OS available?
When resources are constrained, and the generalised OS and stack
are too big. Otherwise, go ahead and use an O/S with a stack.
Other reasons are to do with having full source code and so on.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
Reply by FreeRTOS.org●April 24, 20072007-04-24
"Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xD5Xh.461$RX.217@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> Ignacio G.T. wrote:
>
>> Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
>> CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on my
>> side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are first-hand
>> experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
>
> A TCP/IP stack is heavily relying on the services provided by OS. Porting
> a stack to a different OS is a quite an involved piece of work. Thus, I
> would suggest using the stack which comes with your target OS.
>
I have ported lwIP and uIP for use with FreeRTOS.org on a couple of
processors, and the effort was minimal. Especially in comparison to writing
the MAC driver. For the path of least resistance it might be worth
considering who has the best support for your chosen processor rather than
your chosen OS.
Although the OP has not mentioned other requirements, such as throughput,
number of connections, protocols, etc. These would naturally narrow the
selection anyway.
--
Regards,
Richard.
+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.
+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky●April 23, 20072007-04-23
Stephen Pelc wrote:
>>It is required to have the dynamic memory management and the timekeeping
>>services at the least. Also, the socket interface without multithreading
>>does not make much sense.
>
>
> The code involved to write a heap, timekeeping, and scheduler is
> mostly high level, and is minimal compared to the code required
> by a TCP/IP stack. I maintain an embedded TCP/IP stack. Porting
> the three items you mention is far less work than writing a new
> Ethernet driver.
You know everything about your own stack, thus it is not a big deal *for
you* to port it to any platform. However I would prefer a solution
rather then "do it yourself" package. Why bother porting somebody else's
stack when there is a TCP/IP native to OS available?
VLV
Reply by Stephen Pelc●April 23, 20072007-04-23
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:20:34 GMT, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is required to have the dynamic memory management and the timekeeping
>services at the least. Also, the socket interface without multithreading
>does not make much sense.
The code involved to write a heap, timekeeping, and scheduler is
mostly high level, and is minimal compared to the code required
by a TCP/IP stack. I maintain an embedded TCP/IP stack. Porting
the three items you mention is far less work than writing a new
Ethernet driver.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky●April 23, 20072007-04-23
Chris Hills wrote:
>> A TCP/IP stack is heavily relying on the services provided by OS.
>
> Quite a few TCP/IP stacks are independent of any OS.
It is required to have the dynamic memory management and the timekeeping
services at the least. Also, the socket interface without multithreading
does not make much sense.
VLV
Reply by Chris Hills●April 23, 20072007-04-23
In article <xD5Xh.461$RX.217@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Vladimir
Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>Ignacio G.T. wrote:
>
>> Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
>>CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on
>>side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are first-hand
>>experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
>
>A TCP/IP stack is heavily relying on the services provided by OS.
>Porting a stack to a different OS is a quite an involved piece of work.
>Thus, I would suggest using the stack which comes with your target OS.
Quite a few TCP/IP stacks are independent of any OS.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Paul Bosselaers●April 23, 20072007-04-23
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Ignacio G.T. wrote:
>
>> Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
>> CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on
>> my side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are
>> first-hand experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
>
> A TCP/IP stack is heavily relying on the services provided by OS.
> Porting a stack to a different OS is a quite an involved piece of work.
> Thus, I would suggest using the stack which comes with your target OS.
CMX-MicroNet can be used without an OS or with an OS through a simple
porting layer. This porting layer is already done for the CMX-RTX and
CMX-Tiny+ OSes. CMX-MicroNet supports a wide variety of processors and
compilers out of the box so getting it running should not be "an
involved piece of work".
Paul Bosselaers
CMX Systems
Reply by Vladimir Vassilevsky●April 23, 20072007-04-23
Ignacio G.T. wrote:
> Just three contenders are left in my particular arena: uC/TCP-IP,
> CMX-MicroNet and lwIP. Price, capabilities and source analysis are on my
> side. What I'm looking for from your appreciated minds are first-hand
> experiences on any of these three stacks, if freely available.
A TCP/IP stack is heavily relying on the services provided by OS.
Porting a stack to a different OS is a quite an involved piece of work.
Thus, I would suggest using the stack which comes with your target OS.
Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com