On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:22:08 -0700 (PDT), info@serd.cz wrote:>On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: >> I have found 2 GCC ports for ARM. Any experience or opinions on which is >> best? >> >> Here are links to both. >> http://gnuarm.com/ >> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html > >Hello, > >do you know where I can find machine codes by math function, exactl big integers ?There are many. Google for "bignum library". GMP is one of the most comprehensive and fastest.
Free ARM Compilers?
Started by ●December 13, 2004
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: >> I have found 2 GCC ports for ARM. Any experience or opinions on which is >> best? >> >> Here are links to both. >> http://gnuarm.com/ >> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.htmlThat site no longer hosts anything as far as I can see. (Or are you just trolling for links to it?) It used to be rickmans site if I am not mistaken, it was a good resource in the past, when gcc ARM builds were not so widespread. There is GCC ARM Embedded: https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded ...Which is my current favorite. It is maintained by ARM themselves and has no artificial limitations.>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.htmlThis is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless you buy the for-pay version. -- John Devereux
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> writes:>> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: >>> I have found 2 GCC ports for ARM. Any experience or opinions on which is >>> best? >>> >>> Here are links to both. >>> http://gnuarm.com/ >>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html > > > That site no longer hosts anything as far as I can see. (Or are you just > trolling for links to it?) > > It used to be rickmans site if I am not mistaken, it was a good resource > in the past, when gcc ARM builds were not so widespread. > > There is GCC ARM Embedded: > > https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded > > ...Which is my current favorite. It is maintained by ARM themselves and has > no artificial limitations. > >>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html > > This is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless > you buy the for-pay version.Haha I did not see the date on that! Oh well... -- John Devereux
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
On 4/30/2015 8:09 AM, John Devereux wrote:> >> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: >>> I have found 2 GCC ports for ARM. Any experience or opinions on which is >>> best? >>> >>> Here are links to both. >>> http://gnuarm.com/ >>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html > > > That site no longer hosts anything as far as I can see. (Or are you just > trolling for links to it?) > > It used to be rickmans site if I am not mistaken, it was a good resource > in the past, when gcc ARM builds were not so widespread.I lost the gnuarm.com domain name and it costs a bunch of money now to reclaim it. The files were very stale though. I only put up the site and someone else managed the tools. He eventually decided winarm is better and went that route.> There is GCC ARM Embedded: > > https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded > > ....Which is my current favorite. It is maintained by ARM themselves and has > no artificial limitations. > >>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html > > This is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless > you buy the for-pay version.Is there anything to prevent someone who has paid for this to release it publicly? Doesn't the license allow that? I think what you are really paying for is the support, no? -- Rick
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
On 30/04/15 14:37, rickman wrote:> On 4/30/2015 8:09 AM, John Devereux wrote: >> >>> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote:>> >>>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html >> >> This is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless >> you buy the for-pay version. > > Is there anything to prevent someone who has paid for this to release it > publicly? Doesn't the license allow that? I think what you are really > paying for is the support, no? >I don't think you can release the binaries openly, but you can certainly release the source code (which CodeSourcery, now owned by Mentor, provide). To be useful, you would need to remove the license check code that CS adds to their paid-for versions (to check the validity of your license) - this check code is clearly written and under the GPL, and included with the sources (and obviously also with the binaries). There will be additional restrictions on some of the target libraries, some of which is CS's own code and under their licensing (for unrestricted use on the target, but with restrictions on usage for development). You also don't get the source code to all of these libraries except with the most expensive options. So you pay for support (by the folks that actually maintain the ARM port, and do a large amount of the gcc and gcc-arm development), additional libraries, debugging "sprites" (code interfacing the hardware to gdb and Eclipse), and the pre-packaging. In addition, you pay for the knowledge that the binaries you are getting are well-testing, and have been run through third-party test suites like Plum Hall (but I believe you must pay a fair amount extra if want the results and certificates of such tests). But you are certainly free to release the source of the toolchain itself, along with some of the libraries. There's not much point, however, since CodeSourcery makes a "lite" version for free containing exactly the same stuff plus pre-compiled binaries. (Disclaimer - it's been a while since I looked at CodeSourcery's site or read their information, so it's possible that some of this is out of date.)
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
On 4/30/2015 10:12 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 30/04/15 14:37, rickman wrote: >> On 4/30/2015 8:09 AM, John Devereux wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: > >>> >>>>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html >>> >>> This is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless >>> you buy the for-pay version. >> >> Is there anything to prevent someone who has paid for this to release it >> publicly? Doesn't the license allow that? I think what you are really >> paying for is the support, no? >> > > I don't think you can release the binaries openly, but you can certainly > release the source code (which CodeSourcery, now owned by Mentor, > provide). To be useful, you would need to remove the license check code > that CS adds to their paid-for versions (to check the validity of your > license) - this check code is clearly written and under the GPL, and > included with the sources (and obviously also with the binaries). > > There will be additional restrictions on some of the target libraries, > some of which is CS's own code and under their licensing (for > unrestricted use on the target, but with restrictions on usage for > development). You also don't get the source code to all of these > libraries except with the most expensive options. > > So you pay for support (by the folks that actually maintain the ARM > port, and do a large amount of the gcc and gcc-arm development), > additional libraries, debugging "sprites" (code interfacing the hardware > to gdb and Eclipse), and the pre-packaging. > > In addition, you pay for the knowledge that the binaries you are getting > are well-testing, and have been run through third-party test suites like > Plum Hall (but I believe you must pay a fair amount extra if want the > results and certificates of such tests). > > > But you are certainly free to release the source of the toolchain > itself, along with some of the libraries. There's not much point, > however, since CodeSourcery makes a "lite" version for free containing > exactly the same stuff plus pre-compiled binaries. > > > (Disclaimer - it's been a while since I looked at CodeSourcery's site or > read their information, so it's possible that some of this is out of date.)I was under the impression the free "lite" version was a release older than the paid for stuff. -- Rick
Reply by ●April 30, 20152015-04-30
On 30/04/15 23:50, rickman wrote:> On 4/30/2015 10:12 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 30/04/15 14:37, rickman wrote: >>> On 4/30/2015 8:09 AM, John Devereux wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:12:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas Carley wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>> http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm.html >>>> >>>> This is good too but last time I looked had restricted libraries unless >>>> you buy the for-pay version. >>> >>> Is there anything to prevent someone who has paid for this to release it >>> publicly? Doesn't the license allow that? I think what you are really >>> paying for is the support, no? >>> >> >> I don't think you can release the binaries openly, but you can certainly >> release the source code (which CodeSourcery, now owned by Mentor, >> provide). To be useful, you would need to remove the license check code >> that CS adds to their paid-for versions (to check the validity of your >> license) - this check code is clearly written and under the GPL, and >> included with the sources (and obviously also with the binaries). >> >> There will be additional restrictions on some of the target libraries, >> some of which is CS's own code and under their licensing (for >> unrestricted use on the target, but with restrictions on usage for >> development). You also don't get the source code to all of these >> libraries except with the most expensive options. >> >> So you pay for support (by the folks that actually maintain the ARM >> port, and do a large amount of the gcc and gcc-arm development), >> additional libraries, debugging "sprites" (code interfacing the hardware >> to gdb and Eclipse), and the pre-packaging. >> >> In addition, you pay for the knowledge that the binaries you are getting >> are well-testing, and have been run through third-party test suites like >> Plum Hall (but I believe you must pay a fair amount extra if want the >> results and certificates of such tests). >> >> >> But you are certainly free to release the source of the toolchain >> itself, along with some of the libraries. There's not much point, >> however, since CodeSourcery makes a "lite" version for free containing >> exactly the same stuff plus pre-compiled binaries. >> >> >> (Disclaimer - it's been a while since I looked at CodeSourcery's site or >> read their information, so it's possible that some of this is out of >> date.) > > I was under the impression the free "lite" version was a release older > than the paid for stuff. >I don't think so - but it may not be updated quite as often. But as I say, I haven't looked for a while.
