GCC compiler for ARM7-TDMI

"Eric" <englere_geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1152286000.878956.326260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> By wary of benchmarks comparing gcc to other compilers. Keil's 
> orignial
> benchmarks for their comparisons made a number of errors:

"Errors", sure, that was purely by accident ;-)

> they used an
> obsolete version of gcc, and they selected non-optimimum libraires,
> etc. To this day Keil still distributes an obsolete set of GNU tools,
> so you don't want to use the ones they provide.
>
> I don't like the idea of using gcc with the Keil IDE because you still
> have the 16K limit in the free version. Gcc doesn't have a limit, but
> Keil's debugger does. So I'd use either Eclipse or Rowley's CrossWorks
> if I definitely wanted to use the gcc compiler.
>
> Eric
> 

"An Schwob in the USA" <schwobus@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152215568.608390.256120@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> DJ, Help me understand this; you do not trust the benchmarks on some
> compiler vendors site but you trust this compiler vendor who just did
> not invest the resources to generate a better compiler, so Raisonance
> has to defend the GCC (because they are using it).

Sorry, that was lacking in detailed. Of course Raisonance may have a bias,
but I find their benchmark to be trustworthy because is seems thorough and
fair. Especially considering that it takes the real world into acount and
uses a slimmed down printf() for gcc, putting it on an equal footing
benchmarking-wise with the commercially developed /embedded/ offerings. They
also measure 'pure' code space and size (not measuring libraries). I've seen
some vendors sites where gcc is made to look like it generally uses twice
the memory of their product. Yes, out of the box a dedicated embedded
compiler may look better than a general one, but that can be (and has been)
fixed by using appropriate libraries. There may be better benchmarks, but I
haven't found any.

DJ
--

In article <1152202504.21260.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, Tom Lucas <news@REMOV
EautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> writes
>"news.inet.tele.dk" <mj@iadataFJERNMIG.dk> wrote in message 
>news:44ad19c5$0$14018$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Anyone that has experience with some of the lower cost IDE's bassed on 
>> the GCC? We have been looking at:
>>
>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/index.htm
>>
>> We seriously considers to buy this instead of the way more expensive 
>> products from IAR, KEIL...etc. We develop applications of a med. 
>> complexity.
>>
>> Any  comments on this choice ?
>
>Firstly, bear in mind that there is no Keil any more and that it has 
>been consumed by ARM. I've heard complaints about the ARM compiler so 
>hopefully they will replace it with Keil's.

Actually they replaced the Keil compiler with the  ARM Real View one.  


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

In article <1152286692.89152.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, Tom Lucas <news@REMOV
EautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> writes
>
>"Eric" <englere_geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:1152286000.878956.326260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> By wary of benchmarks comparing gcc to other compilers. Keil's 
>> orignial
>> benchmarks for their comparisons made a number of errors:
>
>"Errors", sure, that was purely by accident ;-)

It was.  GCC bench marks are a moving target depending on all sorts of
things including which version of the front end, back end libraries etc. 
as you say...

>> they used an
>> obsolete version of gcc, and they selected non-optimimum libraires,
>> etc. 



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

In article <EQarg.3061$YI3.555@amstwist00>, Dr Justice
<sorry@no.spam.wanted> writes
>"news.inet.tele.dk" <mj@iadataFJERNMIG.dk> wrote in message
>news:44ad19c5$0$14018$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Anyone that has experience with some of the lower cost IDE's bassed on the
>> GCC? We have been looking at:
>>
>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/index.htm
>>
>> We seriously considers to buy this instead of the way more expensive
>> products from IAR, KEIL...etc. We develop applications of a med.
>complexity.
>>
>> Any  comments on this choice ?
>
>My impression is that GCC generally does pretty well; not as good as the
>best commercial ones but better than some, depending on the code.
>
>The only benchmark I've found and trust is this comparison of KEIL, IAR,
>GCC and ARM - it may interest you too:
>http://www.raisonance.com/products/STR7/benchmark.php.
>
>I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that the benchmarks at some
>compiler vendors sites seem 'not quite right' ;)

I  wonder which ARM compiler Rasionance supply... 

Interesting that the GCC fans only like the becnhmarks which show GCC as
one of the better compilers and ignore all the rest. 



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

In article <lkvrg.3098$YI3.2525@amstwist00>, Dr Justice
<sorry@no.spam.wanted> writes
>"An Schwob in the USA" <schwobus@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1152215568.608390.256120@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> DJ, Help me understand this; you do not trust the benchmarks on some
>> compiler vendors site but you trust this compiler vendor who just did
>> not invest the resources to generate a better compiler, so Raisonance
>> has to defend the GCC (because they are using it).
>
>Sorry, that was lacking in detailed. Of course Raisonance may have a bias,
>but I find their benchmark to be trustworthy because is seems thorough and
>fair.

!!! :-) only because it favours your favourite compiler (one that they
supply)

> Especially considering that it takes the real world into acount and
>uses a slimmed down printf() for gcc, putting it on an equal footing
>benchmarking-wise with the commercially developed /embedded/ offerings.


So these trustworthy benchmarks do things to favour the GCC compiler....
Anyone can spend time tinkering with the setups to favour any compiler. 

> They
>also measure 'pure' code space and size (not measuring libraries).

SO you don't use libraries? 

> I've seen
>some vendors sites where gcc is made to look like it generally uses twice
>the memory of their product. Yes, out of the box a dedicated embedded
>compiler may look better than a general one, but that can be (and has been)
>fixed by using appropriate libraries. 

As pointed out: out of the box GCC is not that good. Now you say the
libraries are poor.  Well if you want to spend time messing about
configuring and building the system work out the cost... The cost of an
Engineer to a company is about 60GBP/100USD per hour. SO the cost of
putting together a better GCC is going to cost in real terms. Time is
NOT free. 

BTW if the GCC libraries are not that good why should the rest of it be
better? 

>There may be better benchmarks, but I
>haven't found any.

There are quite a few but none you would accept as they don't show the
GCC to be the best. 

IAR for example use 20 real world projects. I think some of them belong
to real customers. You don't get much more real world than that. They
also usually give all the version numbers and settings for all the
compiler they ran the benchmakrs on. 

Keil provide the source of benchmarks on the website... or at least they
used to so anyone could recreate them on any compiler.

There are other benchmarks I have seen.  The only ones I have seen that
show Gcc is any good come from people supplying or using GCC.. sop the
are not better than anyone else's.

The bottom line is that unless you want to pay for a configuration or
spend time (==MONEY) on a GCC set up it will be not as good as the
commercial compilers. 

Nothing is free in this world. EVER. There is always a cost. 

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

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:B9JisABJq4rEFAB1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
> >The only benchmark I've found and trust is this comparison of KEIL, IAR,
> >GCC and ARM - it may interest you too:
> >http://www.raisonance.com/products/STR7/benchmark.php.
> >
> >I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that the benchmarks at some
> >compiler vendors sites seem 'not quite right' ;)
>
> I  wonder which ARM compiler Rasionance supply...

I you had read this thread before replying, you'd be aware that this has
been mentioned and is known to the participants.

> Interesting that the GCC fans only like the becnhmarks which show GCC as
> one of the better compilers and ignore all the rest.

That was an unfair, untrue and and unnecessary comment, Mr. Hills.
Again, if you had bothered read this thread...
How about pointing us to all those benchmarks instead.

DJ
--

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:SN6mQYBG$4rEFAhQ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <lkvrg.3098$YI3.2525@amstwist00>, Dr Justice
> <sorry@no.spam.wanted> writes
> >"An Schwob in the USA" <schwobus@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1152215568.608390.256120@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> DJ, Help me understand this; you do not trust the benchmarks on some
> >> compiler vendors site but you trust this compiler vendor who just did
> >> not invest the resources to generate a better compiler, so Raisonance
> >> has to defend the GCC (because they are using it).
> >
> >Sorry, that was lacking in detailed. Of course Raisonance may have a
bias,
> >but I find their benchmark to be trustworthy because is seems thorough
and
> >fair.

[This message appeared after the one I previously replied to]

> !!! :-) only because it favours your favourite compiler (one that they
> supply)

I have never stated that this is my favourite compiler?

> > Especially considering that it takes the real world into acount and
> >uses a slimmed down printf() for gcc, putting it on an equal footing
> >benchmarking-wise with the commercially developed /embedded/ offerings.
>
> So these trustworthy benchmarks do things to favour the GCC compiler....
> Anyone can spend time tinkering with the setups to favour any compiler.

No, they do things to equalize the premises for an embedded benchmark
scenario. They are testing compilers, not libraries.

> > They
> >also measure 'pure' code space and size (not measuring libraries).
>
> SO you don't use libraries?

Yes, I do. But e.g. not the out of the box printf() in the case of GCC.

[snip]

> BTW if the GCC libraries are not that good why should the rest of it be
> better?

Right, and on that bombshell I think there is little point in continuing
this. Frankly this is too much like a troll/attack/ridicule and does not
appear to me to be conductive to good discussion.

DJ
--

In article <6qMrg.3130$YI3.1323@amstwist00>, Dr Justice
<sorry@no.spam.wanted> writes
>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:B9JisABJq4rEFAB1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>[snip]
>> >The only benchmark I've found and trust is this comparison of KEIL, IAR,
>> >GCC and ARM - it may interest you too:
>> >http://www.raisonance.com/products/STR7/benchmark.php.
>> >
>> >I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that the benchmarks at some
>> >compiler vendors sites seem 'not quite right' ;)
>>
>> I  wonder which ARM compiler Rasionance supply...
>
>I you had read this thread before replying, you'd be aware that this has
>been mentioned and is known to the participants.

It was a rhetorical question. It was important to point out that the
"trustworthy" benchmarks you cite are as biased as any other. 

>
>> Interesting that the GCC fans only like the becnhmarks which show GCC as
>> one of the better compilers and ignore all the rest.
>
>That was an unfair, untrue 

Not in my experience. 

>and and unnecessary comment, Mr. Hills.

Why if it is accurate? Which I believe it is.

>Again, if you had bothered read this thread...
>How about pointing us to all those benchmarks instead.

They have already been posted. 

Do you want a technical discussion or just to make personal attacks? 

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

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:EMRzg+Bqg5rEFASb@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <6qMrg.3130$YI3.1323@amstwist00>, Dr Justice
> <sorry@no.spam.wanted> writes
> >"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> >news:B9JisABJq4rEFAB1@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

> Do you want a technical discussion or just to make personal attacks?

I want a technical discussion, as I'm sure the OP does. I'm not making any
attacks. However, I had to defend myself against assertions like:

"Interesting that the GCC fans only like the becnhmarks which show GCC as
one of the better compilers and ignore all the rest."

"There are quite a few but none you would accept as they don't show the
GCC to be the best. "

"Now you say the libraries are poor."

These are all plainly untrue, and none are something that I've ever stated.
It is difficult to discuss when your party is making up attributions like
these. I'm sure you're a good bloke, and that this twist of the thread was
just an unfortunate incident. Lets just drop it and not pollute c.s.a.e,
please.

DJ
--