AVR Compiler Recommendations

Chris Hills wrote:

{stuff}

In summary -

One person in this NG, or possibly a corporation surrounding him, is on
a first-name basis with high-level executives at several compiler
vendors. He experiences premium grade technical support at all times,
and compiler vendors are willing to go backwards and forwards in time
with special versions built to accommodate his particular needs.

Therefore everyone else should buy these specific expensive products,
with draconian and dangerous copy protection schemes. Anybody who
suggests otherwise is driveling at best. Anyone who hints that the
products in question are often poorly supported, a risky investment,
and a terrible value for money is out of his mind and should be quietly
shot.

It's very nice that you have a hotline to God, Chris - please don't
mistake that for reality or purport to others that it will represent
their experience. It's safe for me to say that your attitude is very
much in the minority, even if you invoke the mythical silent majority
of developers who don't post in/read c.a.e.

On 2006-05-10, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> 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

Nonsense.  Rowley and GCC are both "serious compilers".

> Why? Because Rowley is GNU....

Huh?  That's the first time I've ever heard anybody claim that.

> Not sure why you would suggest buying a gnu compiler though.

Guaranteed support.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  UH-OH!! We're out
                                  at               of AUTOMOBILE PARTS and
                               visi.com            RUBBER GOODS!

On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:02:13 -0000 in comp.arch.embedded, Grant
Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

>On 2006-05-10, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
[...]
>> Why? Because Rowley is GNU....
>
>Huh?  That's the first time I've ever heard anybody claim that.

Apparently CrossWorks for ARM uses GCC.  Not the case for AVR,
however.

CrossWorks for AVR does use LibUsb-WIN32 (which has an LGPL license)
to communicate with the JTAGICE-MkII.  Rowley provides a link to
download the source for all GPL tools on their web site
(http://www.rowley.co.uk/crossworks/gpl_sources.htm).

Regards,
                                        -=Dave

-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

In article <1263sj53nq16see@corp.supernews.com>, Grant Edwards
<grante@visi.com> writes
>On 2006-05-10, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> 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
>
>Nonsense.  Rowley and GCC are both "serious compilers".
>> Why? Because Rowley is GNU....
>
>Huh?  That's the first time I've ever heard anybody claim that.

:-) It is amazing waht you don't know you don't know. 

>> Not sure why you would suggest buying a gnu compiler though.
>
>Guaranteed support.

Exactly. that is why you buy tools. 

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

In article <4461d8a1$1@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.
removethisbit.com> writes
>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 is backed up by the figures on piracy. It depends on where you are
standing as to how much of a picture you see. 

>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. 

IAR does the same for 30 days on the full system as do many others. 
There are also size limited systems with no time limit.

> Any issues 
>or special requirements are, in my experience, dealt with quickly and 
>easily. 

I have seen that done by several of the "expensive" tool vendors. 

>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.

That is not correct. Particularly in the safety critical world. 


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

In article <1147266924.602738.169330@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Hills wrote:
>{stuff}
>In summary -
>
>One person in this NG, or possibly a corporation surrounding him, is on
>a first-name basis with high-level executives at several compiler
>vendors.

There are several people who match that profile on this NG 

I have just been pulled up by the writer of one commercial compiler
company to say that they don't protect their compilers. (sorry) 


> He experiences premium grade technical support at all times,
>and compiler vendors are willing to go backwards and forwards in time
>with special versions built to accommodate his particular needs.

It depends on how you talk to them.  


>Therefore everyone else should buy these specific expensive products,
>with draconian and dangerous copy protection schemes. 

not that you are at all emotive :-)

>Anybody who
>suggests otherwise is driveling at best. Anyone who hints that the
>products in question are often poorly supported, a risky investment,
>and a terrible value for money is out of his mind and should be quietly
>shot.

Only some of you  ;-) 

>It's very nice that you have a hotline to God, Chris
It's a local call :-) (long joke involving a Universal Architect) 

> - please don't mistake that for reality 

I have found the things I have described to be reality for many years
from both sides of the fence.

>or purport to others that it will represent
>their experience.

Why not? It happens to people I deal with.

> It's safe for me to say that your attitude is very
>much in the minority, even if you invoke the mythical silent majority
>of developers who don't post in/read c.a.e.

As you well know I have worked for various tool distributors over the
last decade.  I can tell you that most of your excuses don't hold water.
I have seen *several* compiler vendors sort out the supply of old
versions, the problem of crashed hard disks on node locked systems,
missing or broken dongles (even on obsolete systems)  and changes of
licensing system on compilers to suit new hardware.

In fact I have seen first hand most of the problems you site as reasons
for not using protected systems solved reasonably quickly and with
little fuss. 

I can't understand how you manage to constantly have these problems.
Unless it is the way you interact with tools suppliers? Always seeing
them as guilty before you start?  Judging by your emotive arguments you
seem like an "angry young man" with more of a religious zeal than solid
reasoning. 


 

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

On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:44:43 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
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

Well then we should start a project to add insane copy protection
to GNU. Then if one wants a "serious compiler", one uses GNU
with copy protection, for "non-serious" projects, one used GNU
without the copy protection.

>>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. 

It is not crap. The amount of time wasted to try and get an older IAR
compiler going on new hardware is immence. IAR have got zero interest
in supporting their old compilers. Compiling code for an old product
that needs a few maintenance updates is very seldom an option.
The person who has shown himself to be biased when it comes to 
compilers has been yourself.


>> 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


For the AVR Rowley is NOT GNU. It is for the ARM, for the AVR they
have their own compiler. 
One "buys" any GNU compiler for the commercial support - the same as
for any other compiler, except that one can go elseware if the support
sucks, or the company dissapears. 

Regards
  Anton Erasmus

Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Which is the same as any other serious compiler

No. A large number of important compilers for various architectures (RVCT,
Intel C++, XLC, etc.) are protected via FlexLM which is not known for being
that hard to crack if you know what you are doing. It's a keep the honest
honest tool really.

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

You are not buying the complier in the sense of paying for its development,
you are buying the IDE, the debugger and support. In any case it is a common
misconception that open source means free as in money. Even the FSF sell a
compiled up suite of their tools for the platform of your choice for
kilobucks if you don't care to compile them up yourself.

-p

On 10 May 2006 14:12:17 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

>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.

This becomes quite problematic if you have to support your product
for, say, 10 years. 

There is a great risk that the compiler vendor goes bankrupt or is
bought by a competitor who kills the product line. To avoid such
problems, the source code and documentation is sometimes stored by a
trusted third party and is available only if the vendor is not able to
fulfill their obligations. 

A vendor in liquidation has sometimes been bought by a large customer
to secure the supply of vital services.

Even if the vendor remains in business, it should provide a 24 x 7
service for any copy protection problems due to different time zones
and different cultural weekly rest systems (Friday/Saturday/Sunday).

Even if a replacement dongle is available at a short notice from the
vendor, how do you transport it to the other side of the world
literally into the jungle ? While some international carrier may be
able to deliver it to the correct country, you may have to hire a
helicopter to deliver it to the site in the jungle or the Siberian
taiga. 

For these reasons, I try to avoid any products with dongles or other
awkward copy protection systems.

Paul

In article <j2q462lmkd0oj55jotbkvrossbf1dv18v4@4ax.com>, Paul Keinanen
<keinanen@sci.fi> writes
>On 10 May 2006 14:12:17 +0200, David Brown
><david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>There is a great risk that the compiler vendor goes bankrupt or is
>bought by a competitor who kills the product line. To avoid such
>problems, the source code and documentation is sometimes stored by a
>trusted third party and is available only if the vendor is not able to
>fulfill their obligations.

This is always possible but you do not need the source code for that.

>Even if the vendor remains in business, it should provide a 24 x 7
>service for any copy protection problems due to different time zones
>and different cultural weekly rest systems (Friday/Saturday/Sunday).

They do. Though I think you mean "normal business hours" for any given
time zone. You try getting support for PC's, cars, Tv's bank's, etc etc
out side local working hours. You are inventing flimsy problems.  That
said most compiler vendors have web forums now and usually you can get
support from other users on the Internet in NG's just like GNU.

If you are talking about a specific implementation of GNU you will find
that the companies that do them will also only work normal business
hours. They have lives and families too.

>Even if a replacement dongle is available at a short notice from the
>vendor, how do you transport it to the other side of the world
>literally into the jungle ?

Or the Siberian tundra? Its not to difficult. I have done that. A
parallel port dongle (not IAR) for an outfit who were doing some
installation work and trials in Siberia. Their ONLY link was sat phone
so they could not get any Internet support. 

Did similar for an outfit doing vehicle trials the middle of the
Canadian outback. Allegedly.

I am currently supplying a very old version of a compiler to one
customer and sorting out some node locked compilers where there has been
a hard disk crash for another.

> While some international carrier may be
>able to deliver it to the correct country, you may have to hire a
>helicopter to deliver it to the site in the jungle or the Siberian
>taiga. 

You pre plan. 

>For these reasons, I try to avoid any products with dongles or other
>awkward copy protection systems.

The same applies to vehicle parts, computers, etc when working out in
the middle of nowhere.

BTW your GNU theory falls down as well. How do you reinstall the GNu
compiler if the hard disk crashes? I can's see HP or Dell doing a 4 hour
turnaround to the jungle. 

I get the impression the open source community here KNOW the answer and
will use any argument no matter how unlikely to fit their [ religious ]
convictions about open source. It is the only thing that accounts for
the sort of arguments you see here. 

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