Forums

STM32 ARM toolset advice?

Started by John Speth October 7, 2008

Stefan Reuther wrote:

> Or would you buy one which every backyard mechanic (or > you yourself using a self-help book) can fix?
I take it you have adjusted the mixture on a car that has moved from Boston to Denver to accommodate the 5000ft altitude change. My point just as tools become more specific so has the examples. Just a simple screwdriver used to adjust carburetors it now requires engine controller code to be re-flashed to account for change of address. Regards, -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com
In article <gcr1tr.b8.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de>, stefan.news@arcor.de 
says...
> Chris H wrote: > > In message <TcCdnUe6NbbdQm3VnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@posted.visi>, Grant Edwards > >> On 2008-10-11, Bocote <PBlake@Eden-Electronics.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Since I am delivering commercial software to date and to > >>> budget that is essential, over runs of effort or timescale > >>> cost money ??? big money. But yes I pay a yearly maintenance > >>> contract for it. > >> > >> You can get commercial support for open-source if you want. > > > > So they are not free.. Where is the advantage? > > The advantage is (and this is not at all a new argument): if the > commercial vendor tells you "I won't fix this bug, buy our upgrade > instead", "You are using a non-standard product which is not covered by > our support contract", or "We won't fix this problem, implement your own > workaround", that's it. Maybe you can go to court and solve the issue, > so you get a fix six months later. With an open-source tool-chain, you > can always hire someone to do it for you (if you don't want to do it > yourself).
I've not seen that happen with my IAR ARM toolset.
> > The open-source people will also not ship broken dongle drivers that > crash your development machine, nor will they tell you "of course we > delivered you the CDs and dongles, but we will not give you the license > files until you sign this contract expansion which limits your rights". > > None of the above has been made up, everything experienced during my > (still short) life as embedded developer. I would prefer open-source by > far. Actually, aside from the Windows and the toolchain on my > development computer, all programs I use regularly are open-source. > Unfortunately, the GCC for our target is pretty bad. > > Maybe my experience also comes from the fact that we're a medium-sized > European company, which doesn't have high priority for glorious American > companies. If we were AT&T or the DoD in the United States, our live > might be easier. That aside, our company policy is to buy source > licenses for everything where we can get them. This has saved our lives, > nay, projects, more than once in a while. If there were a source license > for the compiler, we'd probably get it. > > Compulsory car comparison: would you buy a car where the motor block is > cast in concrete, which only the vendor can fix, and only if you buy a > support contract? Or would you buy one which every backyard mechanic (or > you yourself using a self-help book) can fix? > >
Bad example. Backyard car engine diagnosis and repair pretty much went away with computerized engine controls, emission controls, etc. I actually prefer to have my engine block cast in steel. Mark Borgerson
Chris H wrote:
>
... snip ...
> > Having been doing tech support for may years I can tell you that > giving most programers the source to fix a compiler is not a good > idea. Most don't understand compilers. They also go on about > "ANSI-C" !!!
In other words you disapprove of having code developed for one project usable unchanged on another? BTW, the standard is ISO. ANSI applies to the US. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:34:56 -0700, Mark Borgerson
<mborgerson@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>
>> >> >Bad example. Backyard car engine diagnosis and repair pretty much went >away with computerized engine controls, emission controls, etc.
Unless you have a car from the 70s or earlier. :-) Or you spend a bunch for the proper diagnostic tools.
>I actually prefer to have my engine block cast in steel.
Mostly cast iron or cast aluminum, I think. :-) -- ArarghMail810 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
In message <48F144CF.9A51CBCB@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer 
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>Chris H wrote: >> >... snip ... >> >> Having been doing tech support for may years I can tell you that >> giving most programers the source to fix a compiler is not a good >> idea. Most don't understand compilers. They also go on about >> "ANSI-C" !!! > >In other words you disapprove of having code developed for one >project usable unchanged on another?
No. That is not what I said.
> BTW, the standard is ISO. >ANSI applies to the US.
I know that. You know that. However most programmers have no idea what they mean by "ANSI-C" and have never heard of 9899:1990 or 9899:1999 -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Oct 11, 4:13=A0pm, "Bocote" wrote:
> >Paul Black wrote: > > >Chris has a simple and infallible mechanism. =A0Open-source =3D bad. > >Expensive =3D good.
Please be careful who you attribute text to: that was not written by me. Paul

Mark Borgerson wrote:
> In article <gcr1tr.b8.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de>, stefan.news@arcor.de >>Chris H wrote: >>>So they are not free.. Where is the advantage? >> >>The advantage is (and this is not at all a new argument): if the >>commercial vendor tells you "I won't fix this bug, buy our upgrade >>instead", "You are using a non-standard product which is not covered by >>our support contract", or "We won't fix this problem, implement your own >>workaround", that's it. Maybe you can go to court and solve the issue, >>so you get a fix six months later. With an open-source tool-chain, you >>can always hire someone to do it for you (if you don't want to do it >>yourself). > > I've not seen that happen with my IAR ARM toolset.
Good luck. However, ARM is a mass-market, so there's serious competition. That's probably a good incentive to behave nicely.
>>Compulsory car comparison: would you buy a car where the motor block is >>cast in concrete, which only the vendor can fix, and only if you buy a >>support contract? Or would you buy one which every backyard mechanic (or >>you yourself using a self-help book) can fix? > > Bad example. Backyard car engine diagnosis and repair pretty much went > away with computerized engine controls, emission controls, etc.
Okay, the last car I owned is now old enough to get its own driving license. It did have a little electronics, but I never brought it to an official manufacturer-licensed mechanic. The "free" / "unlicensed" ones still got it fixed. And even with today's fully-electronicised cars, backyard mechanics can change the spark plugs, fuel pumps, catalytic converters, etc. For a piece of proprietary binary-only software, only the manufacturer can do that. Stefan
In message 
<46cc6bef-1287-4992-bbd3-62bc74090682@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, 
Paul Black <lacuna@saturnine.org.uk> writes
>On Oct 11, 4:13&#2013266080;pm, "Bocote" wrote: >> >Paul Black wrote: >> >> >Chris has a simple and infallible mechanism. &#2013266080;Open-source = bad. >> >Expensive = good. > >Please be careful who you attribute text to: that was not written by >me.
And I have never said that. However never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Paul Black wrote:
> "Bocote" wrote: >>> Paul Black wrote: >> >>> Chris has a simple and infallible mechanism. Open-source = bad. >>> Expensive = good. > > Please be careful who you attribute text to: that was not written > by me.
Actually he failed to attribute it to anyone, including me. Note that properly composed messages have attributions with one less quote markers than the associated quote. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
>Stefan wrote: > >Compulsory car comparison: would you buy a car where the motor block is >cast in concrete, which only the vendor can fix, and only if you buy a >support contract? Or would you buy one which every backyard mechanic (or >you yourself using a self-help book) can fix? > > > Stefan > >
One thing is for sure I would not risk my families life or spend my life in prison by driving a car that any "backyard mechanic", or someone having a go using a "self-help book" has tried to mend the braking system that they don't understand, who can't do the calculations to determine if the tubing can withstand the pressure involved in an emergency stop, or even worse thought they could make it so much better with just a little alteration here or there. Yes I might be able to find a contractor who would be willing to tell me they can easily fix a thorny compiler bug - but having been burnt by over confident coders, I would not risk my business or the jobs of people who are employed by it on the basis of a contract who thought they knew how compilers work better than a compiler vendor.
>With an open-source tool-chain, you can always hire someone to do it for
you (if you don't want to do it yourself). Yes but ! my engineers are paid to do the job my customers want done not playing "backyard mechanic" fixing other peoples software. I did look at the route you suggested of buying a supported Linux environment for a major project we have recently completed. Wow, you might hate Microsoft but the cost of using tools etc from a vendor offering what I needed packaged and supported, was not far off 10 times the amount of buying the Microsoft Tools.
>Unfortunately, the GCC for our target is pretty bad.
Rather proves the point doesn't it. The compilers we use knocks spots of the GCC equivalent compiler for every single one of the targets we use, and with several project the code and data bloating of the GCC compiler would have made the project too large for the target processor, but then opur tools are written by a vendor who really understand the needs of embedded targets, who specialises in that one market. I recently worked with another company who used a "free compiler" with all the library sources provided for the embedded chip they put on one of the boards in the system &ndash; wow they had problems, lots and lots of problems. They ended up re-writing library functions, after of course working out how they were supposed to work and how they actually worked, and several abortive attempts to fix them themselves. etc. their "free tool" added months to the project, now that I don't call free. Unless of course you done get paid for your time, such as if you&rsquo;re a student. Oh and our mutual customer has asked us to quote for replacing their software completely in the next upgrade to the product. A lost customer is a very high price to pay for using a "free tool". I guess my objection to open source is the way it is always portrayed as "free" and "better than software you pay for". The trouble is the real costs are ignored. Its almost as though open source is a religion that is fundamentally right for all situations and for all people &ndash; "just because it is", and somehow people earning a living writing software are evil capitalists. Bocote