8051 on-chip debugging

In message <4d8f3e2a.164785781@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
<nico@puntnl.niks> writes
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <4d8e81f1.116600859@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
>><nico@puntnl.niks> writes
>>>
>>>For most compiler vendors the IDE is not part of their core business
>>>so they invest as little as possible in developing their IDE.
>>
>>This is complete crap.
>
>Some customer complaints for example:
>http://www.keil.com/forum/14928/

Ok so you have one person wanting to use the Keil compiler with eclipse.
However I can probably fined many more who tell me Eclipse is crap.

You said: IDE is not part of their core business so they invest as
little as possible in developing their IDE

Which is complete crap. In fact Keil developed the IDE for their ARM
compilers BEFORE they did the compiler.

>>> Note
>>>that many have already moved to Eclipse or will do so in the near
>>>future.
>>
>>Again crap and conjecture not based on reality.
>
>Well, check your reality:
>
>http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID
>=1166491&highlight=
>http://focus.ti.com/pr/docs/preldetail.tsp?sectionId=594&prelId=sc09100
>http://am.renesas.com/products/tools/ide/ide_kpiteclipse/ide_kpiteclips
>e_tools_product_landing.jsp
>http://ics.nxp.com/lpcxpresso/


It would help if you could stop to read what was written.   Freescale,
NXP, Renasas etc are silicon compnaies and are looking for the least
expensive way of getting the cheapest tools packaged with their silicon
to get people to try and use their silicon.

When they have decided on the silicon it is expected they will move on
to professional tools.   The Tools packaged with the silicon are usually
coasted out of the marketing budget. A necessary evil

The problem is GCC, Linux and Eclipse tend to come with a religion
transplant that removes all engineering common sense.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:

> 
> When they have decided on the silicon it is expected they will move on
> to professional tools.   The Tools packaged with the silicon are usually
> coasted out of the marketing budget. A necessary evil
>

With commercial toolchains set at the price they are, a lot of smaller
companies and consultants will have no alternative but to balk at the
cost and look for lower cost alternatives, especially if they need
multiple copies. The gnu compiler collection and associated tools have
had some serious money invested by serious companies in the past few
years and are now probably every bit as good as the commercial versions
for some platforms. Why is this ?. Because, as you say, the silicon
vendors want to get product into the marketplace and expensive
proprietary toolchains are one if not the main barrier to achieving this.

As you also say, nothing comes for free, but I could spend days at my
hourly rate and still save a bundle over, say. the Keil Mdk for
arm. Not only that, the experience gained building gcc and other tools
adds to the knowledge base and will be usable next time I need to build
a toolchain, not to mention the benefit in terms of common source
libraries, makefiles, linker script templates etc.

> 
> The problem is GCC, Linux and Eclipse tend to come with a religion 
> transplant that removes all engineering common sense.
> 

That's a bit emotive, almost insulting, suggesting that any engineer who
doesn't keep the faith with commercial tools must be somehow mentally
deficient. Can't believe you really mean to say that.

Regards,

Chris

Op 27-Mar-11 1:55, Nico Coesel schreef:
> Dombo<dombo@disposable.invalid>  wrote:
>
>> Op 26-Mar-11 22:17, Nico Coesel schreef:
>>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<4d8e1de9.90993203@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
>>>> <nico@puntnl.niks>   writes
>>>>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message<4d8d35dc.31587953@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
>>>>>> <nico@puntnl.niks>   writes
>>>>>>> YMMV. For ARM you can use GCC + Eclipse which is completely free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't and never has been. IF may be free to download but that is
>>>>>> not the same thing. Ask you project manager.
>>>>>
>>>>> GCC + Eclipse are completely free. Nobody is charging you for using
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> IF may be free to download but that is not the same thing. Ask you
>>>> project manager.
>>>
>>> There is no project manager so tell me where I should send the money
>>> if I use Eclipse.
>>
>> Unless your time is worth nothing the purchase price of a tool is only a
>> (small) part of its total cost.
>
> Then show me a tool which doesn't require time to learn how to use it.

Strawman strategy. I never claimed that a tool (commercial or free) 
doesn't require time to learn how to use it. I only claimed that the 
purchase price is only part of its total cost. Therefore one should not 
only look at its purchase price but also consider the time it takes to 
get up to speed with it and the eventual productivity. And those factors 
are certainly not equal for every tool.

I'm not saying that free tools costs more, just that it is not 
self-evident that free tools cost less than commercial tools when you 
look at the whole picture. Considering how much a manweek costs compared 
to the purchase price of most tools, the purchase price should be in 
most cases only a minor consideration.

> Eclipse being free doesn't mean it is bad.

Strawman strategy. I never claimed it was.

In message <wgIjp.132612$T_2.95130@newsfe06.ams2>, ChrisQ
<meru@devnull.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>
>>  When they have decided on the silicon it is expected they will move
>>on
>> to professional tools.   The Tools packaged with the silicon are usually
>> coasted out of the marketing budget. A necessary evil
>>
>
>With commercial toolchains set at the price they are, a lot of smaller
>companies and consultants will have no alternative but to balk at the
>cost and look for lower cost alternatives, especially if they need
>multiple copies.

That is the same in every industry.

>The gnu compiler collection and associated tools have
>had some serious money invested by serious companies in the past few
>years and are now probably every bit as good as the commercial versions
>for some platforms.

That is not true by a LONG way.

>Why is this ?. Because, as you say, the silicon
>vendors want to get product into the marketplace and expensive
>proprietary toolchains are one if not the main barrier to achieving this.

No. Silicon vendors put as little effort as possible in to developing
these tools It comes of their profit line


>As you also say, nothing comes for free, but I could spend days at my
>hourly rate and still save a bundle over, say. the Keil Mdk for
>arm. Not only that, the experience gained building gcc and other tools
>adds to the knowledge base and will be usable next time I need to build
>a toolchain, not to mention the benefit in terms of common source
>libraries, makefiles, linker script templates etc.

If you say so... I do know several people who costed it out and came to
the opposite conclusion.

>>  The problem is GCC, Linux and Eclipse tend to come with a religion
>>transplant that removes all engineering common sense.
>>
>That's a bit emotive, almost insulting, suggesting that any engineer who
>doesn't keep the faith with commercial tools must be somehow mentally
>deficient. Can't believe you really mean to say that.

I didn't say that at all.  I use Open Source tools my self. I am just
not a fanatic about it.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mar 26, 5:09=A0pm, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <xk9jp.288677$Ud7.70...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>, Joel
> Koltner <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"ChrisQ" <m...@devnull.com> wrote in message news:6e9jp.130137$P95.8394
> >1...@newsfe05.ams2...
> >> Arm are a great solution, but overkill for a small application, even
> >> though I do expect to standardise all dev around arm in due course, if=
 poss,
> >> once all the infrastructure is in place.
>
> >Good approach. =A0What I've seen a lot of lately is such competitive
> >pricing for 32-bit microcontrollers that even though, yeah, they're
> >overkill, you might as well get some of the extra creature comforts
> >when they're just about free.
>
> >> The arm toolchain is more complex
> >> to set up as well, unless you spend $K on commercial tools.
>
> >If you're paying engineers for their time, *good* commercial tools are
> >well worth the money.
>
> And for the 8051 there is no better system than Keil
>
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills =A0Staffs =A0England =A0 =A0 /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Wrong : The Raisonance toolkit has the same level of performance/
features, but has excellent support and less expensive !
My $.02,
Bruno

On Mar 27, 6:58=A0am, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
>
> > When they have decided on the silicon it is expected they will move on
> > to professional tools. =A0 The Tools packaged with the silicon are usua=
lly
> > coasted out of the marketing budget. A necessary evil
>
> With commercial toolchains set at the price they are, a lot of smaller
> companies and consultants will have no alternative but to balk at the
> cost and look for lower cost alternatives, especially if they need
> multiple copies. The gnu compiler collection and associated tools have
> had some serious money invested by serious companies in the past few
> years and are now probably every bit as good as the commercial versions
> for some platforms. Why is this ?. Because, as you say, the silicon
> vendors want to get product into the marketplace and expensive
> proprietary toolchains are one if not the main barrier to achieving this.
>
> As you also say, nothing comes for free, but I could spend days at my
> hourly rate and still save a bundle over, say. the Keil Mdk for
> arm. Not only that, the experience gained building gcc and other tools
> adds to the knowledge base and will be usable next time I need to build
> a toolchain, not to mention the benefit in terms of common source
> libraries, makefiles, linker script templates etc.
>
>
>
> > The problem is GCC, Linux and Eclipse tend to come with a religion
> > transplant that removes all engineering common sense.
>
> That's a bit emotive, almost insulting, suggesting that any engineer who
> doesn't keep the faith with commercial tools must be somehow mentally
> deficient. Can't believe you really mean to say that.
>

It's pointless for these arguments.  I use WinAVR/GCC, MPLAB/C30,
Eclipse/ARM and Android/Java/Linux all at the same time.  I can't tell
what is better or worst overall.  I can only say that they do a better
job than I can.  Do you guys think you can write better IDE?

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> 
> When the owner of the company says he wants to do something his way, he gets
> to.  I'm not going to argue about firmware.  I get to do enough of that with
> just the hardware.
>

All you can do is form an honest opinion and communicate that that to
them. If they choose to ignore the facts, they can't say they were
not warned. Sometimes it's better to walk away from work if you can't
get the client to see sense.


> Yup.  That's one reason I don't do code anymore.  I have a severe
> case of xenocryptophobia.  ;-)

I had to look that up :-), but yes, dealing with someone else's legacy
code can be a soul destroying business...

Regards,

Chris

Chris H wrote:

>> The gnu compiler collection and associated tools have
>> had some serious money invested by serious companies in the past few
>> years and are now probably every bit as good as the commercial versions
>> for some platforms.
> 
> That is not true by a LONG way.
>

That's a pretty sweeping statement. How about some data to back it up ?.

> 
>> Why is this ?. Because, as you say, the silicon
>> vendors want to get product into the marketplace and expensive
>> proprietary toolchains are one if not the main barrier to achieving this.
> 
> No. Silicon vendors put as little effort as possible in to developing
> these tools It comes of their profit line
>

How does that in any way relate to the content or accuracy of the previous
paragraph ?.

> I didn't say that at all.  I use Open Source tools my self. I am just
> not a fanatic about it.
>

Ok, neither are most, I would think. I still don't understand what you
mean by:

"religion transplant that removes all engineering common sense"

I don't see that at all. Open source is just part of the landscape, but 
does
gets better and better. Companies like Code Sourcery and Red Hat etc
demonstrate that there is more than one valid business model for
software tool development, sale and support...

Regards,

Chris

ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> writes:

> Chris H wrote:
>
>>> The gnu compiler collection and associated tools have
>>> had some serious money invested by serious companies in the past few
>>> years and are now probably every bit as good as the commercial versions
>>> for some platforms.
>>
>> That is not true by a LONG way.
>>
>
> That's a pretty sweeping statement. How about some data to back it up ?.

He has none, just anecdotes, because it is, I gather,

 *illegal to publish benchmarks of commercial compilers*.

What have they got to hide I wonder?

The one I remember is this notorious example

<http://www.compuphase.com/dhrystone.htm>

Here it seems Keil trashed GCC by comparing its output with
theirs. Without mentioning theirs had opimization turned on and gcc did
not!!

The only time I looked into it (on ARM) I found no significant
difference when compiling small functions and tight loops (which was my
focus when I needed to optimize something). There was a bigger
difference with respect to library functions and floating point math.

[...]

-- 

John Devereux

On 27/03/11 16:10, Chris H wrote:
> In message<4d8f3e2a.164785781@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
> <nico@puntnl.niks>  writes
>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message<4d8e81f1.116600859@news.kpnplanet.nl>, Nico Coesel
>>> <nico@puntnl.niks>  writes
>>>>
>>>> For most compiler vendors the IDE is not part of their core business
>>>> so they invest as little as possible in developing their IDE.
>>>
>>> This is complete crap.
>>

Chris, no one is going to take you seriously until you understand the 
difference between "most compiler vendors" and "Keil, IAR, and a couple 
of other expensive commercial toolkit vendors".

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Keil don't put a lot 
of effort into their IDE.  I can't say I was overly impressed by Keil's 
IDE for ARM, but I only used it for a day-long workshop.  It was okay - 
better than many I've used, but not something that would have influenced 
me to buy it.

However, the real world situation in embedded tools is that a large 
proportion (probably well over half) currently use Eclipse as their IDE, 
and many of the others are moving to it.  The majority of those left buy 
in their IDEs or have pretty simple home-made tools.  Finally, there are 
a few very large commercial developers that put a lot of work and effort 
into their IDEs - including Keil, IAR and Green Hills (to name a few 
that I have tried).  But that clan is small, and it is getting smaller - 
Code Warrior and Code Composer Studio, for example, have both "defected" 
to the Eclipse camp.

Personally, if I were wanted to pay a lot of money for a toolchain, I 
would prefer an Eclipse IDE.  That's not because I like Eclipse so much 
- I usually prefer using a lighter editor and running my compilations 
from command-line make.  But I don't see other vendor's IDEs as being 
significantly better.  They would be more efficient using Eclipse as a 
base and making other tools as Eclipse plugins.  When I give a vendor 
money, I'd prefer that it was for the tools I want - the compiler, the 
libraries, the debugger, the documentation, the support - not for a "me 
too" IDE that they could get free.

Industry consolidation on Eclipse means a lower learning curve for 
users, and developers, which is good for everyone.