Development Environment for 8085

rk wrote:
> Jack Klein wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 19 Apr 2004 01:05:18 GMT, rk <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com>
>>wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for an
>>>embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I have
>>>Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because I'm old
>>>and speak Pascal well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler is a small
>>>plus (because the programmers want a C compiler; I don't want the
>>>programmers, they produce too much bloat and too many documents).
>>>
>>>Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>Does anyone still make the 8085, NMOS or CMOS?  I thought OKI was the
>>last source and ISTR they gave up some years ago, but I could be
>>wrong.  It's been about 20 years since I worked with one.
> 
> 
> I actually, I am planning on designing my own (day job project) from scratch.

Do you mean your own, as in an ASIC, FPGA softcore, or ?
Curious as to why the 8085, instead of, say the 8051 ?
  (I imagine an 8085 could maybe be smaller ?)

<paste>
> I called Intel up about a year ago when I first started looking into this 
> project seriously.  From the many people that I spoke with, it appears that 
> history there started with the Pentium II!

heh heh, now, 'calling Intel about the 8085' - that's got to be the 
triumph of optimism over experience! ... :)
-jg

Jim Granville wrote:

> rk wrote:
>> Jack Klein wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>On 19 Apr 2004 01:05:18 GMT, rk <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com>
>>>wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for an
>>>>embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I have
>>>>Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because I'm old
>>>>and speak Pascal well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler is a small
>>>>plus (because the programmers want a C compiler; I don't want the
>>>>programmers, they produce too much bloat and too many documents).
>>>>
>>>>Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>>Does anyone still make the 8085, NMOS or CMOS?  I thought OKI was the
>>>last source and ISTR they gave up some years ago, but I could be wrong. 
>>>It's been about 20 years since I worked with one. 
>> 
>> 
>> I actually, I am planning on designing my own (day job project) from
>> scratch. 
> 
> Do you mean your own, as in an ASIC, FPGA softcore, or ?

FPGA softcore, actually, although no reason why it wouldn't work in an ASIC in 
principle.


> Curious as to why the 8085, instead of, say the 8051 ?
>   (I imagine an 8085 could maybe be smaller ?)

Got a number of requests for it (mil/hardened part is obsolete but demand 
hasn't dropped to zero), the 8051 cores and mil/hardened parts and cores are 
available commercially, and have a larger experience base with it, although I 
have used both over the years.  I think either one would be suitably small.


> <paste>
>> I called Intel up about a year ago when I first started looking into
>> this project seriously.  From the many people that I spoke with, it
>> appears that history there started with the Pentium II! 
> 
> heh heh, now, 'calling Intel about the 8085' - that's got to be the 
> triumph of optimism over experience! ... :)

Well, it was worth the calling since if we could have located their design 
documentation that could have been helpful.  They had transferred it years 
earlier to Sandia National Labs, for instance, for their port (and they 
couldn't located the old box easily!).  Turned out to be just another 
interesting story, explaining Intel microprocessor history to Intelians who 
had no knowledge of what proceeded them.  I think Intel does (or at least did) 
have a good processor history page.  I think this is it:

   http://www.intel.com/intel/intelis/museum/exhibits/hist_micro/hof/index.htm

;-)

Cheers,

-- 
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public 
relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
-- R. Feynman, Appendix F.

"rk" <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CFD6856A32Frk@199.184.165.239...
> Hi,
>
> Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for an
embedded
> 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I have Windoze
> computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because I'm old and speak
Pascal
> well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler is a small plus (because the
> programmers want a C compiler; I don't want the programmers, they produce
too
> much bloat and too many documents).
>
> Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -- 
> rk, Just an OldEngineer
> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
> relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
> -- R. Feynman, Appendix F.

This is a joke.. right ?
did you break into a museum ?

TheDoc wrote:

> 
> "rk" <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94CFD6856A32Frk@199.184.165.239...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for an
>> embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I have
>> Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because I'm old and
>> speak Pascal well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler is a small plus
>> (because the programmers want a C compiler; I don't want the programmers,
>> they produce too much bloat and too many documents).
>>
>> Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> -- 
>> rk, Just an OldEngineer
>> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
>> relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F.
> 
> This is a joke.. right ?
> did you break into a museum ?

No.

It's obvious, I broke out of one.

Thanks!

rk wrote:
> TheDoc wrote:
>> "rk" <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment
>>> for an embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred
>>> (because I have Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a
>>> big plus (because I'm old and speak Pascal well for the past
>>> 25 years).  A C compiler is a small plus (because the
>>> programmers want a C compiler; I don't want the programmers,
>>> they produce too much bloat and too many documents).
>>>
>>> Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>
>> This is a joke.. right ?> did you break into a museum ?
> 
> No.
> 
> It's obvious, I broke out of one.

Try comp.os.cpm.  A little lurking and checking of google archives
will probably turn up most of what you need.

-- 
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

rk <stellare@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote in
news:Xns94D1CA8E8FEEFrk@199.184.165.239: 

> 
> Richard wrote:
> 
>> rk <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns94CFD6856A32Frk@199.184.165.239: 
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for
>>> an embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I
>>> have Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because
>>> I'm old and speak Pascal well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler
>>> is a small plus (because the programmers want a C compiler; I don't
>>> want the programmers, they produce too much bloat and too many
>>> documents). 
>>> 
>>> Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> 
>> 
>> If Softools still has their compiler/assembler, I'd highly recommend
>> it.  As I recall, they supported an inexpensive emulator for the 8085
>> as well, it's been quite a few years since I've worked with any of
>> that though. 
> 
> Bingo! 
> 
> SofTools does have the compiler/assembler/linker so that is the major
> part of the battle.  No simulator though, which is not a showstopper. 
> I'll either look for one further or write one.
> 

The thing that impressed me the most was their tech support at the time I 
used it.  I was using the assembler, and it was quite new on the market 
at the time, they were extremely responsive to any problems I 
encountered, and generally had them corrected and a new version out to me 
within a couple of days.  I am not trying to imply it was a buggy product 
at the time, the problems encountered were pretty obscure things dealing 
with some odd macros we had in an old project that had been through two 
previous assemblers, and various software engineers.

-- 
Richard

Richard wrote:

> rk <stellare@nospamplease.erols.com> wrote in
> news:Xns94D1CA8E8FEEFrk@199.184.165.239: 
> 
>> 
>> Richard wrote:
>> 
>>> rk <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns94CFD6856A32Frk@199.184.165.239: 
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone have good recommendations for a development environment for
>>>> an embedded 8085 system?  Running on Windoze is preferred (because I
>>>> have Windoze computers).  A Pascal compiler is a big plus (because
>>>> I'm old and speak Pascal well for the past 25 years).  A C compiler
>>>> is a small plus (because the programmers want a C compiler; I don't
>>>> want the programmers, they produce too much bloat and too many
>>>> documents). 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, this is a small job.  Want to keep it lean and mean.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If Softools still has their compiler/assembler, I'd highly recommend
>>> it.  As I recall, they supported an inexpensive emulator for the 8085
>>> as well, it's been quite a few years since I've worked with any of
>>> that though. 
>> 
>> Bingo! 
>> 
>> SofTools does have the compiler/assembler/linker so that is the major
>> part of the battle.  No simulator though, which is not a showstopper. 
>> I'll either look for one further or write one.
>> 
> 
> The thing that impressed me the most was their tech support at the time I 
> used it.  I was using the assembler, and it was quite new on the market 
> at the time, they were extremely responsive to any problems I 
> encountered, and generally had them corrected and a new version out to me 
> within a couple of days.  I am not trying to imply it was a buggy product 
> at the time, the problems encountered were pretty obscure things dealing 
> with some odd macros we had in an old project that had been through two 
> previous assemblers, and various software engineers.

As another data point, I wrote in, quickly got good responses, and have been 
holding a good discussion with them.  So far so good!

They also seem very amenable to making modifications.  Be designing a 
processor, I can add custom instructions as needed, which they will support.  
The big obstacle in my mind to adding new instructions was software support 
for them, which now does not seem to be a problem.  Way cool.

Cheers,

-- 
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public 
relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
-- R. Feynman, Appendix F.

rk wrote:
<snip>
> As another data point, I wrote in, quickly got good responses, and have been 
> holding a good discussion with them.  So far so good!
> 
> They also seem very amenable to making modifications.  Be designing a 
> processor, I can add custom instructions as needed, which they will support.  
> The big obstacle in my mind to adding new instructions was software support 
> for them, which now does not seem to be a problem.  Way cool.

  Sounds interesting - just a minor suggestion, in adding opcodes, make 
sure they can be replaced by macros/subroutine calls - that way you can
access other tool chains, and not lock yourself into single sourced
tool flow. Keeping this soft also allows easier user selection of
where to draw the HW/SW line.
-jg