80186 free C compiler

> While I agree that programming a large single thread application in
> real mode can become quite messy, but using some kind of RTOS and
> allocating separate code, data and stack segments for each task and
> keeping each of them below 64 KiB should not be too hard in most
> cases.

So if I can summarize this argument: "Yes, working with this core is
like jumping through blazing hoops but, really, they're not blazing
quite as vigorously as it appears from a distance, and you'd be
surprised at just how much pain a human can endure before blacking
out".

On 2005-10-02, Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote:

> Know any ARM operating systems that can boot
> in 500ms?

Um, yes.  Pretty much all of the RTOSes I've ever seen?

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  An air of FRENCH
                                  at               FRIES permeates my
                               visi.com            nostrils!!

rziak wrote:
>>Why 80186 (or 80188)? The architecture is obsolete, so
>>I'd avoid it in new designs. An ARM could do the same
>>with modern tools and plenty of more power.
> 
> 
> I would not call it obsolete, it is a mature core with mature tools
> very suitable for small non-battery operrated embedded systems and
> components. There exist various mutations still in production and one
> can also see on Lantronix website that this core is successfuly used in
> new products (like XPort and WiPort).
> 
> Speaking of Lantronix, I quite like their DSTni-EX for the optimized
> instruction set and high amount of integrated prefipherals. However, I
> did not use it myself, just read the datashet.


You seem to have already plenty of responses.

Why I'm thinking of the core being obsolete?
After using the 80186's for nearly 20 years successfully,
many of my customers had to change the processor, as the
chip manufacturers announced EOL for the parts.

Though it may be OT: After 2 years of search for
a replacement, I found the Atmel AT91 series ARMs
with functionality covering well that of an 80186.

As an example: Porting the software of a real-time
controller with 40 kbytes of 80186 code to the ARM
took a week, as both were programmed with C without
ant dirty tricks used. Surprisingly, the code size
was about the same (40064 bytes vs. 40036 bytes). The
compilers used were Borland C v. 4.5 and GCC v. 3.2.1
in Thumb mode.

Even as I used the 8086 family chips from the very
beginning (I still have one in engineering sample 8088's),
I definitely advise against making any new designs
based on a plain 16 bit 80x86.

Please think that for a successful embedded product
used in any non-consumer use, the parts should be
available for 15 to 20 years from the design.

-- 

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

> Why I'm thinking of the core being obsolete?
> After using the 80186's for nearly 20 years successfully,
> many of my customers had to change the processor, as the
> chip manufacturers announced EOL for the parts.

I see.  Well, it has not been such a bad CPU for its times.

> Even as I used the 8086 family chips from the very
> beginning (I still have one in engineering sample 8088's),
> I definitely advise against making any new designs
> based on a plain 16 bit 80x86.

I admit, I was impressed by amount of peripherals Lantronix stuffed
onto their chip, so I may be biased. (Impressed not realy by the core
but by those 2x CAN channels, 2x Ethernet channels, 4x UART and other
goodies on DSTni-EX).

> Please think that for a successful embedded product
> used in any non-consumer use, the parts should be
> available for 15 to 20 years from the design. 

Quite good point.