In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes>In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de >says... >> Mark Borgerson wrote: >> >> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run >> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use >> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox >> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business >> > trips. >> >> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't >> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? > >By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if >it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. >He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated >that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, >or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus >spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography >from Oregon State, to disagree!God save us from Academics!!!! :-) There are several GCC ARM compilers that run natively on MS Windows. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
STM32 ARM toolset advice?
Started by ●October 7, 2008
Reply by ●October 9, 20082008-10-09
Reply by ●October 9, 20082008-10-09
On 2008-10-09, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:> In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark > Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes >>In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de >>says... >>> Mark Borgerson wrote: >>> >>> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run >>> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use >>> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox >>> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business >>> > trips. >>> >>> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't >>> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? >> >>By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if >>it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. >>He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated >>that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, >>or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus >>spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography >>from Oregon State, to disagree! > > > God save us from Academics!!!! :-)I'm reminded of a sign once I saw in an engineering lab: +-----------------------------+ | OK, so you've got a PhD | | -- | | Just don't _touch_ anything | +-----------------------------+ -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I had pancake makeup at for brunch! visi.com
Reply by ●October 9, 20082008-10-09
In article <oJ+c06EDna7IFA2R@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, chris@phaedsys.org says...> In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark > Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes > >In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de > >says... > >> Mark Borgerson wrote: > >> > >> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run > >> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use > >> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox > >> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business > >> > trips. > >> > >> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't > >> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? > > > >By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if > >it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. > >He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated > >that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, > >or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus > >spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography > >from Oregon State, to disagree! > > > God save us from Academics!!!! :-) > > There are several GCC ARM compilers that run natively on MS Windows. > >Have you used any of them? Which was the best? Do they have good debugging support? Mark Borgerson
Reply by ●October 9, 20082008-10-09
In article <e7-dne1J5OtUiHPVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@posted.visi>, grante@visi.com says...> On 2008-10-09, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote: > > In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark > > Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes > >>In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de > >>says... > >>> Mark Borgerson wrote: > >>> > >>> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run > >>> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use > >>> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox > >>> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business > >>> > trips. > >>> > >>> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't > >>> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? > >> > >>By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if > >>it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. > >>He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated > >>that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, > >>or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus > >>spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography > >>from Oregon State, to disagree! > > > > > > God save us from Academics!!!! :-) > > I'm reminded of a sign once I saw in an engineering lab: > > +-----------------------------+ > | OK, so you've got a PhD | > | -- | > | Just don't _touch_ anything | > +-----------------------------+ >Back when I was an ensign in the Navy, they used to tell me that the most dangerous thing on a ship was an ensign with a screwdriver! Mark Borgerson
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
In message <MPG.2357fbddc931889d989924@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes>In article <oJ+c06EDna7IFA2R@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, chris@phaedsys.org >says... >> In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark >> Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes >> >In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de >> >says... >> >> Mark Borgerson wrote: >> >> >> >> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run >> >> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use >> >> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox >> >> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business >> >> > trips. >> >> >> >> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't >> >> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? >> > >> >By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if >> >it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. >> >He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated >> >that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, >> >or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus >> >spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography >> >from Oregon State, to disagree! >> >> >> God save us from Academics!!!! :-) >> >> There are several GCC ARM compilers that run natively on MS Windows. >> >> >Have you used any of them?Not personally.>Which was the best?No idea.>Do they have good debugging support?Not compared to commercial tools -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On Oct 10, 8:28=A0am, Chris H wrote:> >Have you used any of them? > > Not personally. > > >Which was the best? > > No idea. > > >Do they have good debugging support? > > Not compared to commercial toolsHow on earth can you state that conclusion based on no experience and no idea? Paul
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
In message <2e7752cd-1863-4ba6-b725-8e3835ef6c44@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Paul Black <lacuna@saturnine.org.uk> writes>On Oct 10, 8:28�am, Chris H wrote: >> >Have you used any of them? >> >> Not personally. >> >> >Which was the best? >> >> No idea. >> >> >Do they have good debugging support? >> >> Not compared to commercial tools > >How on earth can you state that conclusion based on no experience and >no idea?A lot of Linux users on our stand last week at ESS told us so. They were looking for solutions for debugging and testing. I don't use GCC so I don't know which one is the best but I do know talking to various users that many of the options available with the commercial tools are either not available to them or take a lot of time and effort to do (time costs money) and don't give such good results. Trying to get a decent JTAG with Trace to work with linux is not easy (or possible at all in a lot of cases) How do you get automated unit testing? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
I have used both IAR and Keil tools for several processors, both are good although I do prefer Keil. I use the Keil ARM7, ARM9, ARM Cortex compiler. Their processor and peripheral simulator is excellent, and so to is their debugging support. The peripheral simulation and debugging facilities make the license worth paying for. (I've not used the IAR Arm tool so can't say what its debugger and simulator if any are like.) The GCC compiler may or may not be good (from what I have seen it is not a patch on the ARM Real-Vie compiler) but without the processor and peripheral simulation that you get with the Keil tools you only have half a tool set. Since I write software for a living, that would make a “free” compiler a very expensive option indeed. As for licenses, I have had a system disk failure and a separate mother board failure this year, Keil reset my node lock license without difficulty both times. After having tried two tool that were supposed to work under Cygwin one tool I had two one hour sessions with one of their develops trying to get it to work on my PC, the other about 45 minutes with their supposed expert. Neither tool ever did work and as a result of the damage done to my PC by one of the “Cygwin expert” I had to reformat my PC to get ordinary windows applications to work again. I think at least some of the problems were they expected me to run with no firewall and no antivirus, because their tools were not compatible with these ! I did look at using Linux on a major development for a piece of laboratory equipment, but ended up being frightened off by the enormous costs of a supposedly free platform, and all the extra add on licenses I needed to buy. I instead used WinCE – fantastic $3 (£3) a license, a few hundred pounds for Visual Studio and your there. Actually I did need platform builder too as I tailored the OS for our hardware, but for under a grand I was away, and the end user was able to test the user interface on a standard HP PDA – brilliant. Oh and other than Visual Studio you don’t need to buy anything until you’re ready to ship to paying customers. Being able to run the software on a standard PDA was fantastic especially as the hardware was designed in the UK and the Japanese version was targeted at Japan. I even used developers in the USA, and the Ukraine as subcontractors with them not requiring the target hardware. The salesmen also love carrying a demo of the unit on a PDA in their pocket. I guess many will turn their nose up at WinCE but if its right for your application then doing so is foolish. Regards Eric
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:31:17 -0700, Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> wrote:>In article <oJ+c06EDna7IFA2R@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, chris@phaedsys.org >says... >> In message <MPG.2356c38639d6a084989923@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Mark >> Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> writes >> >In article <gcj4ff$8hj$02$2@news.t-online.com>, HBBroeker@t-online.de >> >says... >> >> Mark Borgerson wrote: >> >> >> >> > Almost all my analysis tools, as well as IAR ARM and ICC430 run >> >> > under WinXP, so getting running GCC-ARM, that I was forced to use >> >> > for another project, means either running GCC-ARM in a VirtualBox >> >> > Ubuntu emulator, or toting a separate Linux laptop on business >> >> > trips. >> >> >> >> Erm --- how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that you couldn't >> >> run ARM GCC on Windows, too? >> > >> >By asking the person who sent me the Linux development system if >> >it was possible to run the system under Windows using Cygwin. >> >He told me they didn't know if that would work. That indicated >> >that either it wouldn't work, he didn't know if it would work, >> >or he didn't want to spend the time to get it to work. Thus >> >spaketh the EE PhD from MIT! Who am I, a lowly Msc in Oceanography >> >from Oregon State, to disagree! >> >> >> God save us from Academics!!!! :-) >> >> There are several GCC ARM compilers that run natively on MS Windows. >> >> >Have you used any of them? Which was the best? >Do they have good debugging support?I have used the RIDE IDE from raisonance which has good debugging support, and which uses gcc as the compiler. The freely downloadable version supports debugging of up to 32K. The full commercial version has no restrictions. ST uses this fortheir circleOS based STM32 dev kit. Look at http://www.stm32circle.com Rowley also has their own IDE and debuggernment , and uses GCC as the compiler. I have not used this, but people that have seem to like it. With RIDE it is easy to update the gcc compiler to whatever version you wish. Regards Anton Erasmus
Reply by ●October 10, 20082008-10-10
Paul Black wrote:> Chris H wrote:?>>> Have you used any of them? >> >> Not personally. >> >>> Which was the best? >> >> No idea. >> >>> Do they have good debugging support? >> >> Not compared to commercial tools > > How on earth can you state that conclusion based on no experience > and no idea?Chris has a simple and infallible mechanism. Open-source = bad. Expensive = good. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
