C++ support in ARMCC (Keil) compiler/toolchain ?

Hi All - Can anybody provide any comments on the
C++ support in the Keil compiler (ARM7 target) ?
Specifically:
- completeness (though libstdc++ is not interesting for us)
- robustness

Thanks in advance,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: email me off-group if you like...

On Mar 29, 11:01=A0am, Dave Nadler <d...@nadler.com> wrote:
> Hi All - Can anybody provide any comments on the
> C++ support in the Keil compiler (ARM7 target) ?
> Specifically:
> - completeness (though libstdc++ is not interesting for us)
> - robustness
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> PS: email me off-group if you like...

Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
the GNU compiler.

When I do embedded C++, I get GCC from GNU and build it for my
target.  I've never had that take more than 1/2 a day.

The ARM is a very well supported target in the GCC tool chain.

RK
RK

d_s_klein wrote:
> Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
> the GNU compiler.

Then either your check was rather completely flawed, or your memory is.

Keil _tolerates_ people using GCC as a compiler for ARM projects within 
their IDE to some extent, but that's about all the relation they ever 
had to GNU tools.

Keil had their own C compiler for ARMs, but that was basically abandoned 
after ARM took over Keil a while ago.  Nowadays, the Keil ARM compiler 
is ARM's own one.

On Mar 30, 3:06=A0pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBBroe...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> d_s_klein wrote:
> > Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
> > the GNU compiler.
>
> Then either your check was rather completely flawed, or your memory is.
>

I've forgotten things, and made mistakes before.

Any idea what I should be doing with the .tgz file I downloaded from
keil.com?  The one that they were required to publish because of the
GPL code in their ARM compiler?

Regards,
RK.

On Mar 31, 12:54=A0pm, d_s_klein <d_s_kl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 3:06=A0pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBBroe...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
> > d_s_klein wrote:
> > > Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
> > > the GNU compiler.
>
> > Then either your check was rather completely flawed, or your memory is.
>
> I've forgotten things, and made mistakes before.
>
> Any idea what I should be doing with the .tgz file I downloaded from
> keil.com? =A0The one that they were required to publish because of the
> GPL code in their ARM compiler?
>
> Regards,
> RK.

While I'm waiting for the Keil folks to call back,
I'd sure appreciate any feedback from folks
with C++ experience using the current Keil
product...

Thanks !
Best Regards, Dave

On Mar 30, 12:12=A0pm, d_s_klein <d_s_kl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
> the GNU compiler.

No, it is their own implementation, and is not based on GCC.
They claim C++ is validated with Plum-Hall, but do not publish the
test results.

ARM publishes the same compiler with additional chips supported
in a different package, but it is still based on the proprietary
Keil compiler and not GCC.

Hope that clears it up a bit,
Best Regards, Dave

On 3/31/2010 12:53 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:54 pm, d_s_klein<d_s_kl...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 3:06 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br&#4294967295;ker<HBBroe...@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> d_s_klein wrote:
>>>> Last time I checked, the Keil chain was a commercialized version of
>>>> the GNU compiler.
>>
>>> Then either your check was rather completely flawed, or your memory is.
>>
>> I've forgotten things, and made mistakes before.
>>
>> Any idea what I should be doing with the .tgz file I downloaded from
>> keil.com?  The one that they were required to publish because of the
>> GPL code in their ARM compiler?
>>
>> Regards,
>> RK.
>
> While I'm waiting for the Keil folks to call back,
> I'd sure appreciate any feedback from folks
> with C++ experience using the current Keil
> product...
>
> Thanks !
> Best Regards, Dave
Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead 
C++ carries compared to just plain C ?

hamilton

hamilton wrote:
> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead 
> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?

In what context?  I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
overhead did you anticipate?

I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).

On 3/31/2010 7:11 PM, D Yuniskis wrote:
> hamilton wrote:
>> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
>> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?
>
> In what context? I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
> overhead did you anticipate?
>
> I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
> to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
> But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
> approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).

Yes, good point.

Most new "embedded programmers" are from the desktop world.

I would like to know, as you stated, what would be the overhead for the 
same program using C++ constructs.

By your comment, I doubt too many programmers know that there is a 
difference.

I'll look over the Keil web site and see if there is anything there.

thanks

hamilton

On Apr 1, 1:24=A0am, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/2010 7:11 PM, D Yuniskis wrote:
>
> > hamilton wrote:
> >> Are there any web sites available that compares the amount of overhead
> >> C++ carries compared to just plain C ?
>
> > In what context? I.e., if you "write C in C++" what
> > overhead did you anticipate?
>
> > I've often wanted to recode an existing project in C (or C++)
> > to compare the overall size/speed/etc. with C++ (or C).
> > But, even that wold be an unfair comparison as you (at least, *I*)
> > approach designs in C (C++) differently than I do in C++ (C).
>
> Yes, good point.
>
> Most new "embedded programmers" are from the desktop world.
>
> I would like to know, as you stated, what would be the overhead for the
> same program using C++ constructs.
>
> By your comment, I doubt too many programmers know that there is a
> difference.
>
> I'll look over the Keil web site and see if there is anything there.
>
> thanks
>
> hamilton

Comparing C and C++ is a bit of apples and oranges.
Properly written C++ can reduce source code size, reduce
execution size and time, improve maintainability. Bad C++
is vastly more horrid than bad C, which can be horrid.
Use of C++ by the inexperienced is usually scary.
And you'll be unpleasantly surprised if you say
accidentally drag in the C++ library functions for
stream IO into a small micro...

Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave

PS: If anybody knows of a well-written doc discussing
C++ for embedded in depth, we'd be much obliged !