Hello experts, For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from Atmel. Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but nevertheless I'll give it a shot. So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? Thanking you in advance. Best regards Henrik
Compiler for AT91 ARM processors
Started by ●February 15, 2006
Reply by ●February 15, 20062006-02-15
In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 @ofir.dk says...> Hello experts, > > For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from > Atmel. > > Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? > I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but > nevertheless I'll give it a shot. > > So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? > > Thanking you in advance. > > Best regards > Henrik >Rowley CrossWorks for ARM gets my endorsement. A custom IDE and debugger using GCC for the compiler/linker. http://www.rowley.co.uk --Gene
Reply by ●February 15, 20062006-02-15
In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 @ofir.dk says...> Hello experts, > > For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from > Atmel. > > Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? > I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but > nevertheless I'll give it a shot. > > So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. I've been using gcc-arm for a few months now. I must admit that the system arrived on a laptop set up with Ubuntu Linux and I have no idea of the effort required to install the arm tool chain. It just works, and the code it generates runs without problems (other than those intrinsic to the project). I now understand just enough about the Linux system to do the specific programming tasks required. I'm sure others on this newsgroup can tell you more about gcc and Linux. Mark Borgerson
Reply by ●February 15, 20062006-02-15
Mark Borgerson wrote:> In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 > @ofir.dk says... > >>Hello experts, >> >>For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from >>Atmel. >> >>Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? >>I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but >>nevertheless I'll give it a shot. >> >>So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >> > > > I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one > or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in > the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that > has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. > > I've been using gcc-arm for a few months now. I must admit that the > system arrived on a laptop set up with Ubuntu Linux and I have no > idea of the effort required to install the arm tool chain. It just > works, and the code it generates runs without problems (other than > those intrinsic to the project). I now understand just enough about > the Linux system to do the specific programming tasks required. I'm > sure others on this newsgroup can tell you more about gcc and Linux.I built the GNU toolchains for ARM under both Linux and Windows/Cygwin. A half-day job, properly done. Since then, they have been used to produce some hundreds of kilobytes of very tight embedded code for Atmel AT91's. -- Tauno Voipio tauno voipio (at) iki fi
Reply by ●February 15, 20062006-02-15
In article <0iLIf.383$XK3.361@read3.inet.fi>, tauno.voipio@INVALIDiki.fi says...> Mark Borgerson wrote: > > In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 > > @ofir.dk says... > > > >>Hello experts, > >> > >>For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from > >>Atmel. > >> > >>Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? > >>I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but > >>nevertheless I'll give it a shot. > >> > >>So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? > >> > > > > > > I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one > > or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in > > the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that > > has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. > > > > I've been using gcc-arm for a few months now. I must admit that the > > system arrived on a laptop set up with Ubuntu Linux and I have no > > idea of the effort required to install the arm tool chain. It just > > works, and the code it generates runs without problems (other than > > those intrinsic to the project). I now understand just enough about > > the Linux system to do the specific programming tasks required. I'm > > sure others on this newsgroup can tell you more about gcc and Linux. > > I built the GNU toolchains for ARM under both Linux and > Windows/Cygwin. A half-day job, properly done. > > Since then, they have been used to produce some hundreds > of kilobytes of very tight embedded code for Atmel AT91's.I'll add that getting Rowley CrossWorks up took all of about 9 minutes, as they have taken care of all the messy bits. Price is 495 GBP, or ~US $860. --Gene
Reply by ●February 16, 20062006-02-16
Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:> In article <0iLIf.383$XK3.361@read3.inet.fi>, tauno.voipio@INVALIDiki.fi > says... > > Mark Borgerson wrote: > > > In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 > > > @ofir.dk says... > > > > > >>Hello experts, > > >> > > >>For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors from > > >>Atmel. > > >> > > >>Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? > > >>I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, but > > >>nevertheless I'll give it a shot. > > >> > > >>So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one > > > or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in > > > the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that > > > has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. > > > > > > I've been using gcc-arm for a few months now. I must admit that the > > > system arrived on a laptop set up with Ubuntu Linux and I have no > > > idea of the effort required to install the arm tool chain. It just > > > works, and the code it generates runs without problems (other than > > > those intrinsic to the project). I now understand just enough about > > > the Linux system to do the specific programming tasks required. I'm > > > sure others on this newsgroup can tell you more about gcc and Linux. > > > > I built the GNU toolchains for ARM under both Linux and > > Windows/Cygwin. A half-day job, properly done. > > > > Since then, they have been used to produce some hundreds > > of kilobytes of very tight embedded code for Atmel AT91's. > > I'll add that getting Rowley CrossWorks up took all of about 9 minutes, > as they have taken care of all the messy bits. Price is 495 GBP, or ~US > $860.Their debugger is very comprehensive, and they also supply a nice USB JTAG interface - CrossConnect - for 99 GBP. Their software also works with low-cost Wiggler clones, which can cause problems when using GNU tools. Leon
Reply by ●February 17, 20062006-02-17
Op Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:44:31 +0100 schreef Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net>:> In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 > @ofir.dk says... >> Hello experts, >> >> For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM processors >> from Atmel. >> >> Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? >> I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" question, >> but nevertheless I'll give it a shot. >> >> So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >> > > I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one > or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in > the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that > has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US.For very low volumes, yes. For high volumes, it costs less than GNU. Assuming reduced code size means you can use a cheaper device, that is. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply by ●February 17, 20062006-02-17
"Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn@indes.com> writes:> Op Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:44:31 +0100 schreef Mark Borgerson > <mborgerson.at.comcast.net>: > >> In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 >> @ofir.dk says... >>> Hello experts, >>> >>> For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM >>> processors from Atmel. >>> >>> Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? >>> I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" >>> question, but nevertheless I'll give it a shot. >>> >>> So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >>> >> >> I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After one >> or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in >> the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code that >> has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. > > For very low volumes, yes. For high volumes, it costs less than GNU. > Assuming reduced code size means you can use a cheaper device, that > is.And assuming that it does in fact out perform GNU. This is not at all obvious to me, in fact the reverse seems more likely. <http://www.compuphase.com/dhrystone.htm> -- John Devereux
Reply by ●February 17, 20062006-02-17
Op Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:25:53 +0100 schreef John Devereux <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk>:> "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn@indes.com> writes: > >> Op Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:44:31 +0100 schreef Mark Borgerson >> <mborgerson.at.comcast.net>: >> >>> In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 >>> @ofir.dk says... >>>> Hello experts, >>>> >>>> For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM >>>> processors from Atmel. >>>> >>>> Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? >>>> I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" >>>> question, but nevertheless I'll give it a shot. >>>> >>>> So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >>>> >>> >>> I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After >>> one >>> or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in >>> the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code >>> that >>> has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. >> >> For very low volumes, yes. For high volumes, it costs less than GNU. >> Assuming reduced code size means you can use a cheaper device, that >> is. > > And assuming that it does in fact out perform GNU. This is not at all > obvious to me, in fact the reverse seems more likely. > > <http://www.compuphase.com/dhrystone.htm>Interesting article, but fairly irrelevant for a comparison between GNU and IAR (which is not Keil). <http://www.iar.se/index.php?show=4082_ENG&reflogin=4082_ENG> -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply by ●February 17, 20062006-02-17
Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:> Op Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:25:53 +0100 schreef John Devereux > <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk>: > >> "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <boudewijn@indes.com> writes: >> >>> Op Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:44:31 +0100 schreef Mark Borgerson >>> <mborgerson.at.comcast.net>: >>> >>>> In article <43f2e2da$0$144$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, henrik8381 >>>> @ofir.dk says... >>>>> Hello experts, >>>>> >>>>> For a new project, I am considering the AT91 series of ARM >>>>> processors from Atmel. >>>>> >>>>> Anybody here have experience with these processors, and the tools? >>>>> I know the "which compiler is best" is a very "religionbased" >>>>> question, but nevertheless I'll give it a shot. >>>>> >>>>> So, in your opinion, which tools is worth a look, and which is NOT? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've used the IAR ARM compiler and IDE for several years now. After >>>> one >>>> or two bugs (which IAR fixed or for which they sent me new source) in >>>> the first few months, it has run without problems and produced code >>>> that >>>> has done the job. It's rather expensive at about $4000 US. >>> >>> For very low volumes, yes. For high volumes, it costs less than GNU. >>> Assuming reduced code size means you can use a cheaper device, that >>> is. >> >> And assuming that it does in fact out perform GNU. This is not at all >> obvious to me, in fact the reverse seems more likely. >> >> <http://www.compuphase.com/dhrystone.htm> > > Interesting article, but fairly irrelevant for a comparison between GNU > and IAR (which is not Keil). > > <http://www.iar.se/index.php?show=4082_ENG&reflogin=4082_ENG> >Disclaimer - I have never used the ARM, and I don't know how the various ARM compilers compare in practice, so I'm just looking at this from a general viewpoint. The IAR comparison page is slightly better than Keil's, but not much, for similar reasons. Other points are: there is no source code available for the benchmarks, there are no run-time speeds given (for all we know from this page, the extra code compactness has come at a large run-time penalty, which has its own cost), and there is no indication as to the libraries. Some of the benchmarks look very much like large extra sections of library were linked in (by gcc and Keil), which gives a large skew to the results. This is typical of things like full printf support. There are several ways to reduce this overhead, which will also depend on how the tools were set up in the first place. And of course, library overhead may not be as much of an issue in a real application if lots of other code sections use the libraries. If I were considering using an ARM, and choosing a compiler toolkit with a view to generating fast and/or compact code, I would not consider IAR or Keil's pages to be worth the pixels they written on. I'd ask around, such as in this newsgroup, and I'd try out demo versions myself. Reading a vendor's own "benchmark" page is hardly an objective reference.
