Tim Wescott wrote:> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:34:02 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: > >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>> >>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>> >>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual object >>>> files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to help >>>> duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling it what >>>> IDE project options you are selecting. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>> >>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>> >>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a >>> command line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code >>> Warrior calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the top, >>> but it can also be a life-saver. >>> >>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so >>> you actually know what is going on. >> >> I was wrong it is a .exe file. Now to find a command line logger. >> Google here I come. >> >> >> > > // we don't need no steenking comments! > > int main(int argn, char * argv[]) > { > int n; > for (n = 0; n < argn; argn++) > { > puts(argv[n]); > putchar('\n'); > } > > return 0; > }I agree, but I was also wrong again. It is not using the .exe, some other mechanism. I put a function like that in the way using the exe name and it doesn't get called. Seems to be taking a dll approach. Steenking Freescale. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6715 (20111215) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Codewarrior compiler command line???
Started by ●December 14, 2011
Reply by ●December 15, 20112011-12-15
Reply by ●December 15, 20112011-12-15
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:54:48 -0800, Not Really Me wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:34:02 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>>> >>>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual object >>>>> files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to help >>>>> duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling it what >>>>> IDE project options you are selecting. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>>> >>>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>>> >>>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a >>>> command line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code >>>> Warrior calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the top, >>>> but it can also be a life-saver. >>>> >>>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so >>>> you actually know what is going on. >>> >>> I was wrong it is a .exe file. Now to find a command line logger. >>> Google here I come. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> // we don't need no steenking comments! >> >> int main(int argn, char * argv[]) >> { >> int n; >> for (n = 0; n < argn; argn++) >> { >> puts(argv[n]); >> putchar('\n'); >> } >> >> return 0; >> } > > I agree, but I was also wrong again. It is not using the .exe, some > other mechanism. I put a function like that in the way using the exe > name and it doesn't get called. Seems to be taking a dll approach. > Steenking Freescale.The exe file may just call a dll. It wouldn't be a bad approach. -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●December 15, 20112011-12-15
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:54:48 -0800, Not Really Me wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:34:02 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>>> >>>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual object >>>>> files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to help >>>>> duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling it what >>>>> IDE project options you are selecting. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>>> >>>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>>> >>>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a >>>> command line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code >>>> Warrior calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the top, >>>> but it can also be a life-saver. >>>> >>>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so >>>> you actually know what is going on. >>> >>> I was wrong it is a .exe file. Now to find a command line logger. >>> Google here I come. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> // we don't need no steenking comments! >> >> int main(int argn, char * argv[]) >> { >> int n; >> for (n = 0; n < argn; argn++) >> { >> puts(argv[n]); >> putchar('\n'); >> } >> >> return 0; >> } > > I agree, but I was also wrong again. It is not using the .exe, some > other mechanism. I put a function like that in the way using the exe > name and it doesn't get called. Seems to be taking a dll approach. > Steenking Freescale. >You did make sure to throughly subvert the whole process by putting your exe file in the directory in place of the one that was there? It probably doesn't even occur to the software to run an exe file out of a local directory or anything. -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●December 15, 20112011-12-15
"Not Really Me" <scott@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com> writes:> Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:34:02 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>>> >>>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual object >>>>> files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to help >>>>> duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling it what >>>>> IDE project options you are selecting. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>>> >>>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>>> >>>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a >>>> command line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code >>>> Warrior calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the top, >>>> but it can also be a life-saver. >>>> >>>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so >>>> you actually know what is going on. >>> >>> I was wrong it is a .exe file. Now to find a command line logger. >>> Google here I come. >>> >>> >>> >> >> // we don't need no steenking comments! >> >> int main(int argn, char * argv[]) >> { >> int n; >> for (n = 0; n < argn; argn++) >> { >> puts(argv[n]); >> putchar('\n'); >> } >> >> return 0; >> } > > I agree, but I was also wrong again. It is not using the .exe, some other > mechanism. I put a function like that in the way using the exe name and it > doesn't get called. Seems to be taking a dll approach. Steenking Freescale.Sysinternals procmon can tell you what is going on at the Windows system call level. It is similar to strace, if you are familiar with that, showing which processes are started, all file system and registry access &c. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb545021
Reply by ●December 16, 20112011-12-16
On 15/12/2011 16:38, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:24:24 +0100, David Brown wrote: > >> On 15/12/2011 00:09, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>> >>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>> >>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual object >>>> files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to help >>>> duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling it what IDE >>>> project options you are selecting. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>> >>> >> I don't know about the particular CW version you have here, but all the >> CW tools I have used have a "help/pdf" directory with the manuals - >> including one that contains all the details of the command line switches >> for the compiler. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what you need. >> >>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>> >>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a command >>> line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code Warrior >>> calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the top, but it can >>> also be a life-saver. >>> >>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so you >>> actually know what is going on. >>> >>> >> I agree, for the most part. An IDE build can be faster to get up an >> running, especially if you are not familiar with the compiler and the >> switches you need. But in the long run, makefiles are far better - they >> are more flexible, and provide clear documentation of the build process >> that can be easily read, changed, stored in a vcs, moved between >> different machines, etc. >> >> The IDE (should!) handle multiple source directories, put the object >> files and binaries in directories other than the source, and handle all >> the dependencies automatically. Crafting a makefile that does that well >> is not easy - it takes a fair amount of trial and error, though >> generally it can be reused almost as-is for multiple tools and projects. >> An optimised makefile also generally runs faster than an IDE-based >> build. >> >> Personally, I normally use makefiles. I used to hate IDE editors - they >> were almost always pretty poor, so I only used the IDE for debugging and >> possibly for getting started with a tool. Some IDE's have additional >> features (chip wizards, etc.) which can be useful. However, now almost >> all development tools use Eclipse as their IDE (including modern >> versions of CodeWorrier). As long as it is a fairly current version of >> Eclipse, I am happy with that for editing too. Eclipse works well with >> external makefiles, parsing the compiler output to put warning and error >> markers in the source code. >> >> And if you do use an Eclipse IDE for handling the build, you can read >> the makefiles afterwards and use them for hints for your own makefile. > > I wasn't counting Eclipse in my rant. I should have said "proprietary > IDEs". Eclipse isn't the best editor in the world (CodeWright was, IME > better, although I haven't used it for years). But it's good enough, > it's miles better than some of the editors in proprietary IDEs that I've > been forced to use, and it is _the same every time_. >Fortunately, proprietary IDE's are on the way out - steadily more are switching to Eclipse. I agree that Eclipse is not the best for all purposes, but it is (IMHO, since editors are a very personal choice) a good general purpose programmers' editor. It used to be very slow and bloated - but unlike almost all other software, it has actually got faster over time. Combined with faster JVM's and faster computers, it is fine for most uses. I still use other smaller editors for some uses (such as Crimson editor on Windows, and gedit on Linux) where I want small, fast, and easy use of multiple windows rather than advanced features such as syntax checking and project navigation. The only supplier I know of who has bucked the trend is Atmel - they picked MS Visual Studio for AVR Studio 5. The only reason I can think of is that MS paid them to do so - it has awkward requirements (it's windows only, while the rest of the world is moving to cross-platform tools, and is even somewhat fussy about the windows version), and is very badly packaged. The editor is probably okay, though I haven't tried it much. But even if VS had all the features of Eclipse, it would still be a daft choice - because Eclipse is what embedded developers mostly use for an IDE these days. So any developer who is interested in spending time learning the advanced features of their IDE's would be better off doing so in Eclipse, and using that knowledge for all their other projects and targets.> And you can easily set up your project for "external build" and use your > own damn makefile, which is a copy of your last damn makefile, which you > used because it worked. >Yes, that's what I do.
Reply by ●December 16, 20112011-12-16
On Friday, December 16, 2011 4:10:03 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:> Fortunately, proprietary IDE's are on the way out - steadily more are > switching to Eclipse... > The only supplier I know of who has bucked the trend is Atmel - they > picked MS Visual Studio for AVR Studio 5.Microchip has switched to NetBeans, which is a dubious choice given Sun's situation, regardless of the tool's merits. NetBeans also has a much-less developed ecosystem than Eclipse, where you can find plug-ins for zillions of source control, project management, design, and other tools. I haven't used NetBeans yet but may shortly depending on customer choice of processors; hopefully they choose one where the tools use Eclipse like the other projects here...
Reply by ●December 16, 20112011-12-16
Radey Shouman wrote:> "Not Really Me" <scott@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com> writes: > >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:34:02 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>> >>>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:34:37 -0800, Not Really Me wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We are using CodeWarrior IDE v5.9.0 for a PPC project. >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to build some additional files externally, but CW is not >>>>>> forthcoming with the command line it is creating in the internal >>>>>> project file. (.mpc) It keeps all of that and the individual >>>>>> object files hidden. Freescale provided an excel spreadsheet to >>>>>> help duplicate the command line for compile and link by telling >>>>>> it what IDE project options you are selecting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone have a more reliable approach? >>>>> >>>>> I _hate_ IDEs, and that's one reason. >>>>> >>>>> In extremis, unless Windows 7 gets in your way, you can make a >>>>> command line logger and put it in place of the compiler that Code >>>>> Warrior calls. I've done this before. It's very much over the >>>>> top, but it can also be a life-saver. >>>>> >>>>> Far better would be to build the whole project from a makefile, so >>>>> you actually know what is going on. >>>> >>>> I was wrong it is a .exe file. Now to find a command line logger. >>>> Google here I come. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> // we don't need no steenking comments! >>> >>> int main(int argn, char * argv[]) >>> { >>> int n; >>> for (n = 0; n < argn; argn++) >>> { >>> puts(argv[n]); >>> putchar('\n'); >>> } >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >> >> I agree, but I was also wrong again. It is not using the .exe, some >> other mechanism. I put a function like that in the way using the >> exe name and it doesn't get called. Seems to be taking a dll >> approach. Steenking Freescale. > > Sysinternals procmon can tell you what is going on at the Windows > system > call level. It is similar to strace, if you are familiar with that, > showing which processes are started, all file system and registry > access &c. > > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb545021I have procmon. I'll take a look and see if that helps. Tim - yes I put it in the folder Freescale had the original in. I also tried renaming the folder and that didn't bother the compiler at all. Looks like the folder is only command line versions, but are not used directly by CW. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6718 (20111216) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Reply by ●December 17, 20112011-12-17
Op 16-Dec-11 10:10, David Brown schreef:> The only supplier I know of who has bucked the trend is Atmel - they > picked MS Visual Studio for AVR Studio 5. The only reason I can think of > is that MS paid them to do so - it has awkward requirements (it's > windows only, while the rest of the world is moving to cross-platform > tools, and is even somewhat fussy about the windows version), and is > very badly packaged.Microsoft paying Atmel to use the MS Visual Studio would only make sense if it would serve the interests of Microsoft somehow and in a significant way. Having dealt with Microsoft in the past, I seriously doubt they care one way or the other whether or not Atmel uses MS Visual Studio to base their development environment upon. Microsoft is only interested in supporting things if it promotes the sales of their high volume products, don't expect Microsoft to help you if it would mean that they can sell couple of thousand additional licenses; they are simply not interested. This is one reason why I would avoid Microsoft for embedded products; you are unlikely to be big enough for them to be bothered. Another explanation is that the developers at Atmel were familiar with the Visual Studio environment (which is perfectly fine if you only do development projects for the Windows platform), and were not so familiar with Eclipse. If they also had little time and resources for development of develop AVR Studio 5, it might explain this unfortunate choice.
Reply by ●December 17, 20112011-12-17
On 16/12/11 16:47, Dave Nadler wrote:> On Friday, December 16, 2011 4:10:03 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >> Fortunately, proprietary IDE's are on the way out - steadily more are >> switching to Eclipse... >> The only supplier I know of who has bucked the trend is Atmel - they >> picked MS Visual Studio for AVR Studio 5. > > Microchip has switched to NetBeans, which is a dubious choice > given Sun's situation, regardless of the tool's merits. > NetBeans also has a much-less developed ecosystem than Eclipse, > where you can find plug-ins for zillions of source control, > project management, design, and other tools. > > I haven't used NetBeans yet but may shortly depending on customer > choice of processors; hopefully they choose one where the tools use > Eclipse like the other projects here...That's an even weirder choice - NetBeans has never been particularly popular for C or C++. It's well regarded as a java IDE, and I gather it's okay for C or C++, but it has a mere fraction of the market share there.
Reply by ●December 17, 20112011-12-17
On 17/12/11 21:40, Dombo wrote:> Op 16-Dec-11 10:10, David Brown schreef: > >> The only supplier I know of who has bucked the trend is Atmel - they >> picked MS Visual Studio for AVR Studio 5. The only reason I can think of >> is that MS paid them to do so - it has awkward requirements (it's >> windows only, while the rest of the world is moving to cross-platform >> tools, and is even somewhat fussy about the windows version), and is >> very badly packaged. > > Microsoft paying Atmel to use the MS Visual Studio would only make sense > if it would serve the interests of Microsoft somehow and in a > significant way. Having dealt with Microsoft in the past, I seriously > doubt they care one way or the other whether or not Atmel uses MS Visual > Studio to base their development environment upon. Microsoft is only > interested in supporting things if it promotes the sales of their high > volume products, don't expect Microsoft to help you if it would mean > that they can sell couple of thousand additional licenses; they are > simply not interested. This is one reason why I would avoid Microsoft > for embedded products; you are unlikely to be big enough for them to be > bothered. >I wasn't really being serious there! Realistically, I assume that someone at Atmel either thought that Visual Studio was technically a better choice, or that it would cost them less to develop than Eclipse plugins.> Another explanation is that the developers at Atmel were familiar with > the Visual Studio environment (which is perfectly fine if you only do > development projects for the Windows platform), and were not so familiar > with Eclipse. If they also had little time and resources for development > of develop AVR Studio 5, it might explain this unfortunate choice.Avr Studio 4 (and earlier) were all using a home-made IDE. Atmel also had Avr Studio 32 for the avr32 architecture - it was Eclipse with plugins. Maybe they had had some bad experience with that - it is certainly the case that it used to be a lot harder to make good embedded IDE's from Eclipse. Many Eclipse-based embedded IDEs had a lot of modifications to Eclipse itself to make them work. But for current versions of Eclipse, the embedded IDE vendors can typically use pure stock Eclipse and CDT, and keep everything neatly in their own plugins.
