AVR Compiler Recommendations

On 2006-05-09, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote:
> Jack Klein wrote:

>> I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against the C
>> compilers available from various sources.
>
> I can remommend the Pascal compiler from ELab:

And it compiles C?

;)

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I feel... JUGULAR...
                                  at               
                               visi.com            

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-05-09, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote:
> 
>>Jack Klein wrote:
> 
>>>I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against the C
>>>compilers available from various sources.
>>
>>I can remommend the Pascal compiler from ELab:
> 
> And it compiles C?

No. It doesn't. Pascal has its advantages for
sparse programmers, who only spend a few days
a month programming.

Rene

On 2006-05-09, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2006-05-09, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Jack Klein wrote:
>> 
>>>>I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against
>>>>the C compilers available from various sources.
>>>
>>>I can remommend the Pascal compiler from ELab:
>> 
>> And it compiles C?
>
> No. It doesn't. Pascal has its advantages for
> sparse programmers, who only spend a few days
> a month programming.

Agreed.  I've used Pascal for embedded systems work, and in
many respects I think it's better than C.

I was just pointing out that the OP had specifically requested
recommendations for a C compiler.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Here I am at the flea
                                  at               market but nobody is buying
                               visi.com            my urine sample bottles...

I used WinAVR (GCC port) for my first AVR project at work.
It worked well, with no compiler bugs found. A bit awkward
storing ascii strings in FLASH though. I was impressed
with WinAVR and you can't beat the price.

Eventually we had a serious need for agressive optimizations
in order to cram as many features as possible into the AVR.
We chose IAR C compiler. It was pricey at about $2000.
Worth every penny. Code was crunched down by roughly 30%.
The IAR environment, integration with Atmel ICE MKII, and
ease of use (EE was a snap!) was top notch.

Only drawback is IAR has an iron fist regarding protecting
their property. Required a dongle, and took a week to
get the code to enable the dongle. The alternative to a
dongle is to tie the compiler to a hard drive serial number.
If hard drive crashed, you'd be in bad shape.
Loose the dongle and you're hin bad shape.
Can't resell IAR due to license restrictions.

Given all the alternatives, I'd pick IAR in a heartbeat.



"Jack Klein" <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:u2b062thlm5o81bbf5a214s0nmdhsmota8@4ax.com...
> We've picked an AVR for a small task in a project, haven't used one
> before.
>
> I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against the C
> compilers available from various sources.  We'll be using Atmel's
> Debug Wire debugger.
>
> All input appreciated.
>
> -- 
> Jack Klein
> Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
> FAQs for
> comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
> comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
> alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html 

In article <u2b062thlm5o81bbf5a214s0nmdhsmota8@4ax.com>, Jack Klein
<jackklein@spamcop.net> writes
>We've picked an AVR for a small task in a project, haven't used one
>before.
>
>I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against the C
>compilers available from various sources.  We'll be using Atmel's
>Debug Wire debugger.
>
>All input appreciated.
>

Have a look at the IAR compiler. They do various and an eval version.
You also get C++
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

dungaree wrote:

> Only drawback is IAR has an iron fist regarding protecting
> their property. Required a dongle, and took a week to
> get the code to enable the dongle. The alternative to a
> dongle is to tie the compiler to a hard drive serial number.
> If hard drive crashed, you'd be in bad shape.
> Loose the dongle and you're hin bad shape.
> Can't resell IAR due to license restrictions.
>
> Given all the alternatives, I'd pick IAR in a heartbeat.

ROFL. "IAR cost me $10,000 in downtime" (three engineers for a week)
"and they treat me like a criminal, and their product is expensive, and
because of their insane copy protection you're on a hair trigger for
hardware failure or OS upgrades to leave you dead in the water, but I'd
still pick them". Such masochism!

Did you try any of the alternatives, such as Rowley's product for
instance?

In article <_yc8g.75084$H71.8205@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, dungaree
<matilda@downunder.biz> writes
>
>Only drawback is IAR has an iron fist regarding protecting
>their property. Required a dongle,

or node lock or floating license just like any serious compiler. 

> and took a week to
>get the code to enable the dongle.

or 24 hours for the rest of us. However it does come with a 30 quick
start key so you don't even need to be online for a month to register.

> The alternative to a
>dongle is to tie the compiler to a hard drive serial number.

that  can be done and is by many compilers. That is node locking

>If hard drive crashed, you'd be in bad shape.

Not at all.  IAR are quite helpful in this case. 

>Loose the dongle and you're hin bad shape.

Nope. Wrong again. You put in an insurance claim the same as you would
if you loose a PC, company car or any other hardware. 

>Can't resell IAR due to license restrictions.
Are you sure? I have seen IAR compilers moved from one company to
another.

>Given all the alternatives, I'd pick IAR in a heartbeat.

Given that virtually all compilers have protection it is not really an
issue so you need to look at the other aspects to decide.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1147255537.443985.258740@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>
>dungaree wrote:
>
>> Only drawback is IAR has an iron fist regarding protecting
>> their property. Required a dongle, and took a week to
>> get the code to enable the dongle. The alternative to a
>> dongle is to tie the compiler to a hard drive serial number.
>> If hard drive crashed, you'd be in bad shape.
>> Loose the dongle and you're hin bad shape.
>> Can't resell IAR due to license restrictions.
>>
>> Given all the alternatives, I'd pick IAR in a heartbeat.
>
>ROFL. "IAR cost me $10,000 in downtime" (three engineers for a week)
>"and they treat me like a criminal, and their product is expensive, and
>because of their insane copy protection 

Which is the same as any other serious compiler

>you're on a hair trigger for
>hardware failure or OS upgrades to leave you dead in the water,

Crap, but we know why your so biased....
Open source and Gnu is your religion you are very anti commercial Sw in
a very personal way. 

> but I'd
>still pick them". Such masochism!
>
>Did you try any of the alternatives, such as Rowley's product for
>instance?

Why? Because Rowley is GNU.... Not sure why you would suggest buying a
gnu compiler though


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jack Klein wrote:
> We've picked an AVR for a small task in a project, haven't used one
> before.
>
> I'm looking for any and all recommendations for and/or against the C
> compilers available from various sources.  We'll be using Atmel's
> Debug Wire debugger.

Rowley CrossWorks is now available for the AVR. I haven't tried it, but
their MSP430 tools are excellent.

Leon

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <1147255537.443985.258740@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>> dungaree wrote:
>>
>>> Only drawback is IAR has an iron fist regarding protecting
>>> their property. Required a dongle, and took a week to
>>> get the code to enable the dongle. The alternative to a
>>> dongle is to tie the compiler to a hard drive serial number.
>>> If hard drive crashed, you'd be in bad shape.
>>> Loose the dongle and you're hin bad shape.
>>> Can't resell IAR due to license restrictions.
>>>
>>> Given all the alternatives, I'd pick IAR in a heartbeat.
>> ROFL. "IAR cost me $10,000 in downtime" (three engineers for a week)
>> "and they treat me like a criminal, and their product is expensive, and
>> because of their insane copy protection 
> 
> Which is the same as any other serious compiler
> 

Complicated and unreliable software protection schemes are a pain and a 
cost (both in time and inconvenience) to users.  When combined with an 
"all users are criminals and thieves until proven otherwise" attitude, 
which seems to be common among the large, expensive tool vendors, it is 
a great disadvantage for the product.  Some people see such protection 
as a necessary evil, and put up with it - other people simply refuse 
outright to use the tools if there is any possible way to avoid them 
(even if the alternatives cost more time or money, or are otherwise 
inferior).  Personally, it would take a great deal of persuasion to 
convince me that IAR would be a sensible choice of tool vendor because 
of their reputation in this area.

To the greatest possible extent, I choose tools that don't have 
restrictive protection schemes.  I have no problem paying for tools that 
are worth the money, and no problem following sensible licensing 
restrictions - but I do have a problem with tools that require 
unreliable hardware or software dongles to work, with no way to use the 
tool in the event of a failure.

Note that it is perfectly possible to use software protection schemes 
and still treat your customers with respect.  ImageCraft uses a software 
license (or at least, they did when I bought a license of icc-avr, 
several years ago), but have an attitude that customers are honest users 
until proven otherwise.  So you can use the compiler freely for 45 days 
- more than long enough to sort out any licensing problems.  Any issues 
or special requirements are, in my experience, dealt with quickly and 
easily.  I'm sure there are a few dishonest icc-avr users out there 
using unlicensed copies for commercial development - probably more than 
there are users of hacked dongle-less IAR compilers.  But they would not 
have been paying for the software in any case (certainly not at IAR's 
prices), so ImageCraft don't lose much money there - and I'm sure their 
helpful attitude and reputation more than make up for it in increased sales.

However, if you want the best possible security of being able to run the 
tools on any machine present or future, your only option is if you have 
access to the source code and the rights to use it - meaning open source 
(or public domain) software.

>> you're on a hair trigger for
>> hardware failure or OS upgrades to leave you dead in the water,
> 
> Crap, but we know why your so biased....
> Open source and Gnu is your religion you are very anti commercial Sw in
> a very personal way. 
> 
>> but I'd
>> still pick them". Such masochism!
>>
>> Did you try any of the alternatives, such as Rowley's product for
>> instance?
> 
> Why? Because Rowley is GNU.... Not sure why you would suggest buying a
> gnu compiler though
>