HCS12 Family Compiler Question

In article <6rb42c.3nc.ln@fenelon.com>, pete@fenelon.com says...
> Scott <scotty_agnew@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am starting a project using Motorolas HCS12 family chip.
> > Specifically
> > MC9S12E64.   I was wondering if anyone had some suggestions on which
> > compiler suite to use?  Motorola suggests Code Warrior but seems
> > pricy.  Any comments on
> > the code warrier suite? Or which compiler should I use?
> > 
> 
> IAR or Cosmic. Solid, professional compilers - and the support from the
> Cosmic guys is excellent. I've always really liked Noral's debugger on
> the '12.  
> 
> pete
> 
I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support.  Been using their HC05 
compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased 
their HC11 product just this week.  If you have any trouble with their 
product they will help you out, period.

                         Jim

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:20:09 GMT, James Beck
<jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

[...]

>I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support.  Been using their HC05 
>compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased 
>their HC11 product just this week.  If you have any trouble with their 
>product they will help you out, period.

Just an anecdote.

I have an older (version 4.3, ca. 2000) version of the Cosmic HC08
compiler.  It works well, and I like it.

A few months ago, I emailed a question to them: "Will my compiler
support the MC68HC908Qxx parts, or do I need to upgrade?"  Answer:
"Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own
linker command files.  The latest version of the compiler has these
files included.  If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..."

Excellent.  Just what I wanted to know.

A bit later, I emailed a bug report about one of their free,
downloadable tools that converts their debug information to P&E
format: "The cvpne utility terminates abnormally with a "no memory"
error when I define the following data in the following sections.  Is
this a known problem and is there a workaround?  Or is this just a bug
you need to fix?"  Answer: I see your support contract has expired.
Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as
well as priority access to technical support.  Let me know if you have
any questions."

Nope, I think I got the message.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own
> linker command files.  The latest version of the compiler has these
> files included.  If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..."
> 
> Excellent.  Just what I wanted to know.
> 
> you need to fix?"  Answer: I see your support contract has expired.
> Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as
> well as priority access to technical support.  Let me know if you have
> any questions."
> 

Justifiable in both cases. New functionality costs money; support costs
money. Those of us who can be bothered to keep in support get very good
service.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

In article <40460849.2476939@News.individual.net>, iddw@hotmail.com 
says...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:20:09 GMT, James Beck
> <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >I will 2nd the comment about Cosmic's support.  Been using their HC05 
> >compiler for years now since I heard Introl went belly up I purchased 
> >their HC11 product just this week.  If you have any trouble with their 
> >product they will help you out, period.
> 
> Just an anecdote.
> 
> I have an older (version 4.3, ca. 2000) version of the Cosmic HC08
> compiler.  It works well, and I like it.
> 
> A few months ago, I emailed a question to them: "Will my compiler
> support the MC68HC908Qxx parts, or do I need to upgrade?"  Answer:
> "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own
> linker command files.  The latest version of the compiler has these
> files included.  If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..."
> 
> Excellent.  Just what I wanted to know.
I have never used their supplied command files or headers so I didn't 
run into this problem.  I have made it a habit to make templates for all 
of the variants I'm using so I have a basic C LNK and H files for the 
processors I'm using.  In fact I had to go look at my Cosmic directory 
and I don't have any Cosmic supplied processor specific files.

> 
> A bit later, I emailed a bug report about one of their free,
> downloadable tools that converts their debug information to P&E
> format: "The cvpne utility terminates abnormally with a "no memory"
> error when I define the following data in the following sections.  Is
> this a known problem and is there a workaround?  Or is this just a bug
> you need to fix?"  Answer: I see your support contract has expired.
> Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as
> well as priority access to technical support.  Let me know if you have
> any questions."
> 
> Nope, I think I got the message.
I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance 
agreements.  I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is 
more than reasonable for the return on the investment.  Their response 
is a bit snooty, isn't it?  I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I 
call them.  

                           Jim

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:18:35 GMT, James Beck wrote:

>I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance 
>agreements.  I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is 
>more than reasonable for the return on the investment.  Their response 
>is a bit snooty, isn't it?  I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I 
>call them.  

I don't think it's at all unreasonable. Tech support is an expensive
resource, and it makes sense to give priority to those who are
actually paying for it.

I doubt you'd be too happy if, when you rang up with an urgent
problem, they told you you'd have to wait while they sorted out a
problem with some free software for someone who didn't have a support
contract.

Maybe they were just busy at the time. In a quiet week, Dave might
have had a more helpful response - who knows? I don't think he's
really entitled to expect it, though.

-- 
  Max

In article <js5c40183bns5tpjd7jl66699idp2se7ss@4ax.com>, mtj2
@btopenworld.com says...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:18:35 GMT, James Beck wrote:
> 
> >I guess I'm spoiled because I keep up with the yearly maintainance 
> >agreements.  I use the tools to make a living, so the yearly cost is 
> >more than reasonable for the return on the investment.  Their response 
> >is a bit snooty, isn't it?  I'll have to make meantion of it nest time I 
> >call them.  
> 
> I don't think it's at all unreasonable. Tech support is an expensive
> resource, and it makes sense to give priority to those who are
> actually paying for it.
I agree, but if there is a problem with the tool they should have said 
so.  It wouldn't have taken anymore time or energy to give a more 
informative response.

> 
> I doubt you'd be too happy if, when you rang up with an urgent
> problem, they told you you'd have to wait while they sorted out a
> problem with some free software for someone who didn't have a support
> contract.
That's true enough and that's why I make sure the yearly maintenance 
fees are paid.

> 
> Maybe they were just busy at the time. In a quiet week, Dave might
> have had a more helpful response - who knows? I don't think he's
> really entitled to expect it, though.
> 
Maybe, but, once again, they could have said just that.  It only takes a 
moment to be polite and not sound like you are being ignored just 
because you didn't sign on for the yearly fees.  It's a little thing 
called customer service.  You never know, a different approach may have 
enticed him to re-up his maintenance agreement.

                Jim

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:06:17 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com>
wrote:

>Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Your compiler will support them, but you'll have to create your own
>> linker command files.  The latest version of the compiler has these
>> files included.  If you wish to upgrade, contact sales at..."
>> 
>> Excellent.  Just what I wanted to know.
>> 
>> you need to fix?"  Answer: I see your support contract has expired.
>> Annual support agreements include all the latest product patches as
>> well as priority access to technical support.  Let me know if you have
>> any questions."
>> 
>
>Justifiable in both cases. New functionality costs money; support costs
>money. Those of us who can be bothered to keep in support get very good
>service.
>
>pete

I do not believe the second response was warented. Nowhere is his
question actually answered. They could have said that it is a known
bug, and it has been fixed. To get the fix he needs to upgrade or
renew is support package. I stopped subscribing to any support
packages after I had a similar response. (From another company) I
payed for an upgrade, and the bug I was complaining/asking about had
not been fixed in the latest release.

Regards
   Anton Erasmus