> In message <483e5ab1$0$23817$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown
> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>>
>>> 1. Is it safe for critical/safety operations?
>>
>> Ask the author. If he says yes, he's either telling the truth - or he
>> is a dangerous amateur in this field. More likely, he'll say he
>> doesn't know of any bugs or problems, but cannot give you any sort of
>> guarantee or certification - if you choose to use it in critical
>> systems, it's up to *you* to be sure it is safe (of course, that's
>> true of any system, even if it is certified).
>
> The author will have the certification and all the supporting
> documentation.
>
Certification and related documents certainly make it much easier to
ensure that the RTOS is safe and works properly - but you still have to
do appropriate checking and testing yourself. If you build an plane
control system using third-party certified software, and the plane
crashes, are you going to tell the inquiry that you didn't bother
testing the software because it was certified safe? Clearly you have a
lot more work to do if there are no certifications or other assurances,
but you have the responsibility in any case.
>
>>> 5. Can source code tell about quality?
>
> From the supporting documentation and who did the certification
>
Reply by Chris H●May 29, 20082008-05-29
In message <483e5ab1$0$23817$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>
>> 1. Is it safe for critical/safety operations?
>
>Ask the author. If he says yes, he's either telling the truth - or he
>is a dangerous amateur in this field. More likely, he'll say he
>doesn't know of any bugs or problems, but cannot give you any sort of
>guarantee or certification - if you choose to use it in critical
>systems, it's up to *you* to be sure it is safe (of course, that's true
>of any system, even if it is certified).
The author will have the certification and all the supporting
documentation.
>> 5. Can source code tell about quality?
From the supporting documentation and who did the certification
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>The author of silRTOS apparently wants people to ask him by email for
>downloads. Weird though that might be, I think it is appropriate to
>respect that wish and not post direct download links.
>
Sorry, apologize for keeping link here. Please don't use link
http://silcomm.com/silRTOS_V2.2_MIPS32_Port.zip
which were mentioned to download silRTOS. Please drop mail to silcomm.com
for any download or infomation.
Thanks David for valuable tips !!
>You have the source code, and you have access to information from the
>author. Look at the code, ask the author, measure the running system.
>There are very few people, as far as I know, who actually use silRTOS -
>the website has no information, so the curious developers are very
>unlikely to give it a second thought.
>
>> 1. Is it safe for critical/safety operations?
>
>Ask the author. If he says yes, he's either telling the truth - or he
>is a dangerous amateur in this field. More likely, he'll say he doesn't
>know of any bugs or problems, but cannot give you any sort of guarantee
>or certification - if you choose to use it in critical systems, it's up
>to *you* to be sure it is safe (of course, that's true of any system,
>even if it is certified).
>
>> 2. Interrupt latency ?
>
>Check the code, ask the author, measure the code.
>
>> 3. How good is the code?
>
>Look at and see - that's why you've got the code.
>
>> 4. Why should i choose this comapre to vxWorks, which is most popular?
>
>vwWorks is probably the "most popular" in certain tightly-specified
>niches, but since we don't know what you are working on, no one can tell
>you if it is an appropriate choice. There are vast numbers of embedded
>RTOS's and non-RT OS's available - the most popular and best choices
>depend on the requirements. It's *your* job to figure this out, not
>ours, and not the author of silRTOS.
>
>> 5. Can source code tell about quality?
>>
>
>Yes, obviously. But the source code won't tell you everything - I
>presume there is plenty of documentation for silRTOS as well (or else
>why are you bothering to look at it at all?).
>
>> If i ask these question to vendor, they will always praise their RTOS
so
>> wanted to hear from embedded experts.
>>
>
>It's free software (at least in price - as I say, I don't know the
>license). What incentive would the author have to give trumped up
>claims about the software? Given the website, or lack of it, it seems
>he is not too bothered about whether anyone uses the software or not.
>So try asking him - you've absolutely nothing to lose. Certainly you
>won't find many experts in silRTOS here - few people are interested in
>trying out some secret software available only be email. Of course, if
>you can persuade the author to make a website (even just a SourceForge
>project), provide information about silRTOS, or join comp.arch.embedded,
>then he'd see a lot more interested - we're always happy to learn about
>new RTOS's.
>
>In the meantime, if you are looking for a safety-critical RTOS, I'd drop
>silRTOS. Even if it is solid software, the low usage means it has had
>little real-world testing compared to alternatives. Look at one of the
>big commercial systems like vxWorks if the features and price are
>appropriate, or look at www.freertos.org as an alternative. They have a
>full-featured open source RTOS, a low-price version of the same system
>with less license obligations, and a certified safety-critical version.
> They also have documentation, a large user base, and an author who
>will happily answer your questions here in comp.arch.embedded.
>
>
The author of silRTOS apparently wants people to ask him by email for
downloads. Weird though that might be, I think it is appropriate to
respect that wish and not post direct download links.
You have the source code, and you have access to information from the
author. Look at the code, ask the author, measure the running system.
There are very few people, as far as I know, who actually use silRTOS -
the website has no information, so the curious developers are very
unlikely to give it a second thought.
> 1. Is it safe for critical/safety operations?
Ask the author. If he says yes, he's either telling the truth - or he
is a dangerous amateur in this field. More likely, he'll say he doesn't
know of any bugs or problems, but cannot give you any sort of guarantee
or certification - if you choose to use it in critical systems, it's up
to *you* to be sure it is safe (of course, that's true of any system,
even if it is certified).
> 2. Interrupt latency ?
Check the code, ask the author, measure the code.
> 3. How good is the code?
Look at and see - that's why you've got the code.
> 4. Why should i choose this comapre to vxWorks, which is most popular?
vwWorks is probably the "most popular" in certain tightly-specified
niches, but since we don't know what you are working on, no one can tell
you if it is an appropriate choice. There are vast numbers of embedded
RTOS's and non-RT OS's available - the most popular and best choices
depend on the requirements. It's *your* job to figure this out, not
ours, and not the author of silRTOS.
> 5. Can source code tell about quality?
>
Yes, obviously. But the source code won't tell you everything - I
presume there is plenty of documentation for silRTOS as well (or else
why are you bothering to look at it at all?).
> If i ask these question to vendor, they will always praise their RTOS so
> wanted to hear from embedded experts.
>
It's free software (at least in price - as I say, I don't know the
license). What incentive would the author have to give trumped up
claims about the software? Given the website, or lack of it, it seems
he is not too bothered about whether anyone uses the software or not.
So try asking him - you've absolutely nothing to lose. Certainly you
won't find many experts in silRTOS here - few people are interested in
trying out some secret software available only be email. Of course, if
you can persuade the author to make a website (even just a SourceForge
project), provide information about silRTOS, or join comp.arch.embedded,
then he'd see a lot more interested - we're always happy to learn about
new RTOS's.
In the meantime, if you are looking for a safety-critical RTOS, I'd drop
silRTOS. Even if it is solid software, the low usage means it has had
little real-world testing compared to alternatives. Look at one of the
big commercial systems like vxWorks if the features and price are
appropriate, or look at www.freertos.org as an alternative. They have a
full-featured open source RTOS, a low-price version of the same system
with less license obligations, and a certified safety-critical version.
They also have documentation, a large user base, and an author who
will happily answer your questions here in comp.arch.embedded.
Reply by ROB●May 29, 20082008-05-29
Few month back, i download silRTOS from
http://silcomm.com/silRTOS_V2.2_MIPS32_Port.zip
and ran silRTOS on MIPS but have many question/doubt:
1. Is it safe for critical/safety operations?
2. Interrupt latency ?
3. How good is the code?
4. Why should i choose this comapre to vxWorks, which is most popular?
5. Can source code tell about quality?
If i ask these question to vendor, they will always praise their RTOS so
wanted to hear from embedded experts.
- Rob
>On May 4, 7:42=A0pm, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:
>> =A0> 42Bastian Schick wrote:
>>
>> =A0>> "Not Really Me" wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>The zip I received also contained no document files, just code,
headers,=
>
>> >>makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
>>
>> > Hmm, maybe ask again. They might have changed policy ? I got a
porting
>> > doc but also only the MIPS port.
>>
>> If it is free and open source, why not email your package to him and
>> eliminate all the hassle?
>>
>> Michael
>
>hmmm.. sorry got it .. I=92m using silRTOS rev. 2.2.0, which could
>explain discrimination among code observation ;( and some docs :(
>
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 4, 7:42=A0pm, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:
> =A0> 42Bastian Schick wrote:
>
> =A0>> "Not Really Me" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >>The zip I received also contained no document files, just code, headers,=
> >>makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
>
> > Hmm, maybe ask again. They might have changed policy ? I got a porting
> > doc but also only the MIPS port.
>
> If it is free and open source, why not email your package to him and
> eliminate all the hassle?
>
> Michael
hmmm.. sorry got it .. I=92m using silRTOS rev. 2.2.0, which could
explain discrimination among code observation ;( and some docs :(
Reply by msg●May 4, 20082008-05-04
> 42Bastian Schick wrote:
>> "Not Really Me" wrote:
<snip>
>>The zip I received also contained no document files, just code, headers,
>>makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
>
>
> Hmm, maybe ask again. They might have changed policy ? I got a porting
> doc but also only the MIPS port.
>
If it is free and open source, why not email your package to him and
eliminate all the hassle?
Michael
Reply by 42Bastian Schick●May 4, 20082008-05-04
On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:19:55 -0600, "Not Really Me"
<scott@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com> wrote:
>
>We are clearly looking at different code sets. In the silRTOS.c I received,
>there are a total of 4 code lines containing comments. One is defining the
>internal task number and the other three are within multi-line macros.
>
The code (rev. 2.1.1) I received has at least on every function a
comment. Since I earn my living write RTOS, it's well enough for me.
>The zip I received also contained no document files, just code, headers,
>makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
Hmm, maybe ask again. They might have changed policy ? I got a porting
doc but also only the MIPS port.
--
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !
Reply by Arie●May 3, 20082008-05-03
"Not Really Me" <scott@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com> wrote in message
news:680m93F2qe2muU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> We are clearly looking at different code sets. In the silRTOS.c I
> received, there are a total of 4 code lines containing comments. One is
> defining the internal task number and the other three are within
> multi-line macros.
>
> The zip I received also contained no document files, just code, headers,
> makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
>
> Scott
I received that same file set when I asked for the ARM version: and it was
the MIPS32 version.
I nicely asked for the proper version but that was NOT available. I was
invited to port it myself. Didn't do it because of the lack of
documentation.
Arie
Reply by Not Really Me●May 2, 20082008-05-02
<mary06041981@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cfdc419-f697-46aa-bdb8-595c3373a43f@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:34 pm, "Not Really Me"
<sc...@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com> wrote:
> "Neil Bradley" <nb_no_s...@synthcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59wRj.3312$WS1.1659@trndny04...
>
>
>
>
>
> > mary06041...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Apr 24, 12:37 pm, "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudew...@indes.com> wrote:
> >>> Op Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:28:20 +0200 schreef <mary06041...@gmail.com>:
> >>>> I am working on wireless MAC with ARM-9 based SOC. I wanted to port
> >>>> silRTOS on this ARM-9 based SOC.
> >>> Why? What makes you think that silRTOS is suitable for your project?
> >> We evaluated many available RTOS and found silRTOS most suitable for
> >> our system from couple of points like
> >> #. silRTOS has small foot print for low overhead RAM/ROM & CPU
> >> cycles, yet clean embedded software.
> >> #. silRTOS supports basic services of task/ISR/sem/Q & simple Memory
> >> Management.
> >> #. silRTOS supports GNU Tool chain support with development host as
> >> WINDOWS/LINUX.
> >> #. silRTOS source available freely.
> >> #. silRTOS provide free support available for RTOS.
> >> #. silRTOS provides simple priority scheduling.
> >> #. silRTOS provides commercial usage FREE (NO one time change, NO
> >> productline charges, NO Royalty)
> >> #. silRTOS is widely used and ported to different architecture and
> >> even used in safe-critical applications.
>
> >> We couldn't find any other RTOS which is small & free. Other RTOS have
> >> some or other constraints for usage. (Google)
>
> > The only thing I could find about "silRTOS" was a web page that
> > indicated
> > it could be downloaded for free, yet it was just a hyperlink to a
> > mailto:
> > address.
>
> > -->Neil
>
> > That is the one. You need to send an email to get access to the zip.
> > Having looked at it, I don't think it is worth the bother. The code is
> > uncommented, undocumented and generates a pile of disconcerting lint
> > warnings.
> I totally disagree with you regarding these. I don't understand why
> you said code is uncommented. Each and every line
> has comments and describe the functionality with every function
> description are well documented. What do you expect?
> You say "undocumented�?? What all documents you went through? They
> have very good RTOS internal documents, which describe each and
> everything of RTOS. Also they provide porting guideline documents to
> port RTOS on any architecture and provide free support to any queries
> within 24 hours. What are disconcerting lint warnings??? I don't see
> even single. Did you report this to Author?
We are clearly looking at different code sets. In the silRTOS.c I received,
there are a total of 4 code lines containing comments. One is defining the
internal task number and the other three are within multi-line macros.
The zip I received also contained no document files, just code, headers,
makefile, link file and the Mips port files.
Scott