"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:tGUxtwGDRwSFFArx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...>>>> I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a >>>> reseller >>>> of those products. :-) >>>> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd. >>> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that? >>> >> >>There is a big difference here. You have been dismissing gcc out of hand, >>without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you have even >>tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias (I know people >>can follow the links in your sig.). > > I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the > distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger.Your point? I used to be a Cub Scout.>> Paul has been advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, and >> saying why gcc is a suitable choice in industry. > > Fair enough. However there is a tendency for GCC advocates to > automatically dismiss any criticism of Gcc that comes from anyone who is > involved in anyway with any commercial compiler. Though they don't accept > the argument in reverse.Again, this is supposition without knowledge. You're defending your position by attacking other targets and by using your broad brush on us. Shameful.>>. I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website looks >>too cheerful, > > I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses etc > :-) Rowley are compiler developers not web designers. However the > comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as constructive > criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to his management. > .There were no comments made about the Rowley website, which I think is quite nice. Again, you have just lost the plot, why not try reviewing what was said rather than shooting from the hip? Distinguishing Richard from Paul is a good start, along with our respective buisnesses.>>, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. The only positive >>thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is >>significant, but not decisive). > > I could go on about passing the industry standard test suitsA whistle won't get you anywhere in this office. I don't dress in Industry Standard Test Suits. When I write code I do it in jeans and a T-shirt.> etc but then it degenerates in the fact that the industry standard test > suits cost money...So, if the industry standard compilers pass with good dress sense, what does this mean--GCC is grunge and wears a hoodie? Haute couture in the software industry is a new one on me, I must say, I 'd better start paying more attention to Vogue and Cosmo.> and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) There is no > level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue with religion.You can't argue with an BSI or ISO test certificate, no. Can you point me to such a certificate for the compilers you advocate? One of them? -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
Opinions on Rowley CrossWorks for ARM
Started by ●October 30, 2006
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
In article <1162546524.40203.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, Tom Lucas <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> writes>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message >news:tGUxtwGDRwSFFArx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > ><snip> > >> I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses >> etc :-) Rowley are compiler developers not web designers. However >> the comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as >> constructive criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to >> his management. . > >If you are refering to the comments made elsewhere in this thread then >the comments were in relation to the Imagecraft website - although I've >just looked at Rowley's site and it has dramatically changed so I have >no opinion on it yet. Your site is fine too but I do think your >slightly-suprised-to-have-the-photo-taken portrait could perhaps do with >a revamp ;-)Hi Tom, Web sites *ALWAYS* need a revamp..... things change so fast. That photo was taken about 4 years ago in a hurry and has been used by ESE ever since :-( -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
In article <454b2043$0$8724$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes> >"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message >news:tGUxtwGDRwSFFArx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>> I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a >>>>> reseller >>>>> of those products. :-) >>>>> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd. >>>> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that? >>>> >>> >>>There is a big difference here. You have been dismissing gcc out of hand, >>>without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you have even >>>tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias (I know people >>>can follow the links in your sig.). >> >> I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the >> distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger. > >Your point? I used to be a Cub Scout.You are assuming that because we both sell compilers I have some sort of commercial bias but you don't?>>> Paul has been advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, and >>> saying why gcc is a suitable choice in industry. >> >> Fair enough. However there is a tendency for GCC advocates to >> automatically dismiss any criticism of Gcc that comes from anyone who is >> involved in anyway with any commercial compiler. Though they don't accept >> the argument in reverse. > >Again, this is supposition without knowledge.No. It is stating my experience.> You're defending your >position by attacking other targets and by using your broad brush on us. >Shameful.Not at all..> >>>. I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website looks >>>too cheerful, >> >> I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses etc >> :-) Rowley are compiler developers not web designers. However the >> comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as constructive >> criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to his management. >> . > >There were no comments made about the Rowley website, which I think is quite >nice.Yes I Agree.> Again, you have just lost the plot, why not try reviewing what was >said rather than shooting from the hip? Distinguishing Richard from Paul is >a good start, along with our respective buisnesses.No I was commenting on....>>>. I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website looks >>>too cheerful,However it appears the comments were on the Image craft web site not yours. My mistake.>>>, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. The only positive >>>thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is >>>significant, but not decisive). >> >> I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits > >A whistle won't get you anywhere in this office. I don't dress in Industry >Standard Test Suits. When I write code I do it in jeans and a T-shirt.What was your comment about not answering the questions and changing the subject?>> etc but then it degenerates in the fact that the industry standard test >> suits cost money... > >So, if the industry standard compilers pass with good dress sense, what does >this mean--GCC is grunge and wears a hoodie? Haute couture in the software >industry is a new one on me, I must say, I 'd better start paying more >attention to Vogue and Cosmo.What was your comment about not answering the questions and changing the subject?>> and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) There is no >> level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue with religion. > >You can't argue with an BSI or ISO test certificate, no. Can you point me >to such a certificate for the compilers you advocate? One of them?You can start with the Plum Hall and Perennial test suites? Off line I should be interested in a serious discussion on compiler testing. Regards Chris -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
Chris Hills wrote:> In article <454af9a0$0$8084$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >> Chris Hills wrote: >>> In article <4549fa49$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, >>> Paul Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes >>>> "Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>> news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter >>>>> <wolti@sil.at> writes >>>>>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry >>>>>> standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline >>>>>> assembler >>>>>> in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low >>>>>> level >>>>>> stuff. >>>>> >>>>> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use. >>>> >>>> That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers. >>> >>>> I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a >>>> reseller >>>> of those products. :-) >>>> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd. >>> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that? >>> >> >> There is a big difference here. You have been dismissing gcc out of >> hand, without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you >> have even tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias >> (I know people can follow the links in your sig.). > > I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the > distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger. >I know that (from previous threads), and that is why you are in a position to give useful technical information about the differences between compilers. Tell us why Keil's debugger is much better than Rowley's, or IAR's IDE saves time and therefore money. All I'm asking is that you give us good reasons to choose the tools you recommend, rather than just saying you dislike gcc.>> Paul has been advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, >> and saying why gcc is a suitable choice in industry. > > Fair enough. However there is a tendency for GCC advocates to > automatically dismiss any criticism of Gcc that comes from anyone who is > involved in anyway with any commercial compiler. Though they don't > accept the argument in reverse. >I can give plenty of criticism of gcc (some general to gcc, some regarding other parts of the toolchain, others specific to particular targets). There are fanatics for all sorts of products, but most people who use gcc are aware of its pros and cons, and choose to use it despite its warts. Sometimes that is because of particular requirements (such as the host operating system, or availability of source code, lack of licensing issues, price), and sometimes they have a free choice but feel gcc provides the best value for money (including time), or produces the best code, or is most compatible with other tools. The people providing gcc toolchains, especially those providing them for free, are (in my experience) often far more honest about limitations or problems than people selling commercial tools.>> I don't sell or resell tools, so I'm not biased. > > That does not hold true. You are assuming the only bias is from those > who sell tools. See my last comment. >Ok, no one is entirely unbiased. I have my likes and dislikes, just as everyone else does. But I use closed source and open source, and I try to choose the right tool for the job at the time. My first contribution to this thread was in defence of a commercial toolchain that was dismissed because of its website, and my second was in defence of a toolchain that was dismissed simply because it is gcc.>> Get the best tool for the job - and that depends on both the job and >> who's doing it. > > I agree. > >> . I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website >> looks too cheerful, > > I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses > etc :-) Rowley are compiler developers not web designers. However the > comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as constructive > criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to his management. . >I know it was not you that commented on the website (ImageCraft's site, not Rowley's). My point was that I think all compilers should get a fair hearing based on their merits, not prejudices.>> and I don't like to seem them dismissed because they are gcc (no other >> reason has been given). > > I was dismissing Gcc not Rowley per-say. Rowley do a very good MSP430 > compiler >Exactly - you are dismissing gcc simply because it is gcc.>> If tools like IAR and Keil are so much better, then surely you can >> come up with better reasons than telling us > > Many people have done that. I recall a whole lot of benchmarks put up > but they were all dismissed because they came from commercial sources. > The only benchmarks the Gcc supporters would except were the ones that > showed Gcc was as good as all the commercial compilers and ignored the > fact that the benchmarks were from a commercial company that provided > Gcc (no it wasn't Rowley) >I haven't tried any compilers for ARM, but I've seen plenty of these benchmarks around. Many of the comparisons with ARM gcc were with earlier versions of the compiler, which everyone (including the gcc developers) will tell you generated inefficient code. Comparisons of newer versions would give a different picture - I'd expect gcc to be in the same region as other optimising compilers, just as it is on many other targets. There are well-established techniques for generating good code for architectures rich in registers and with orthogonal instruction sets, and for many types of source code you will get similar generated code from any good compiler (the same applies to the avr, msp430, and ColdFire architectures with which I am familiar). Any benchmark which shows great variation is suspect. Anyway, all benchmarks must be viewed with more than a pinch of salt. Even if the test code used bore any relationship to the code you are using in the real world, benchmarks are almost invariably arranged by someone with a point to make - compiler developers want their product to look good compared to others. Add to this that many commercial software developers have licenses that specifically limit the user's right to publish benchmark information, and published benchmarks are effectively worthless. As a potential customer, your only choices are to ask around for opinions, and download trial versions and test them out yourself.> The reaction I have had from inside several compiler companies is you > can't reason with religion. >I'm not asking you to reason with rabid fanatics - I don't see any in this thread. I'm asking you to reason with people who want to know about compiler toolchains. By dismissing gcc simply because it is gcc, and refusing to give any rational reasoning (I don't see your dislike of gcc fans as a good reason not to use the tools), you are the one leading the thread into "religion". Please, give rational technical or economic arguments for why the O/P and others should buy particular toolchains, or why they should avoid other toolchains, and leave out the biases.>> they are not quite as vastly expensive as they seem > > They are not expensive. You are using a distorted benchmark. The IAR > and Keil compilers are slightly on the higher side of the average for > compilers. You are basing your "average" on one compiler at one end of > the price distribution. Or should we judge all cars on the price of a > Trabant? >What is "expensive" or not depends entirely on your requirements. I'm sure that in many cases, IAR and Keil work out as excellent value for money. But in other cases, they are very expensive. On the occasion (a fair few years ago) in which I was seriously considering IAR's AVR compiler, there is no doubt - it was extremely expensive compared to the competition, which was from ImageCraft. That was based on my requirements. I've no doubt that in other circumstances, IAR's compiler would have been the right choice.>> , and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. The only positive >> thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is >> significant, but not decisive). > > I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits etc but > then it degenerates in the fact that the industry standard test suits > cost money... and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) > There is no level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue > with religion. >You are right - there is no level playing field, and it would be somewhat boring if there were. gcc and high-end commercial compilers are suitable for different uses. For some uses, passing industry standard test suites is vital - for others, it is irrelevant. There are many non-technical issues surrounding buying a compiler - some people insist on having the source code, others might want a supplier that provides a warranty, some want test suite certification, others want freedom from license management issues. When these issues don't apply to you, it's easy to see them as "religion".
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
Chris Hills wrote:> In article <454b2043$0$8724$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul > Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes >> >> "Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message >> news:tGUxtwGDRwSFFArx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...<snip>>>> I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits >> >> A whistle won't get you anywhere in this office. I don't dress in >> Industry >> Standard Test Suits. When I write code I do it in jeans and a T-shirt. > > What was your comment about not answering the questions and changing the > subject? >I suspect this was a little joke on your spelling of "test suits" instead of "test suites". <snip>> >>> and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) There is no >>> level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue with religion. >> >> You can't argue with an BSI or ISO test certificate, no. Can you >> point me >> to such a certificate for the compilers you advocate? One of them? > > You can start with the Plum Hall and Perennial test suites? >I tried a quick google for "Plum Hall IAR", and looked at the first link: http://www.plumhall.com/cqs/tr/trackrecord.html It would appear that IAR is a customer of Plum Hall, as is Red Hat. That by no means implies that gcc is certified by Plum Hall, but it does look like they take test suite testing seriously. Another interesting find from google: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-07/msg00656.html> Off line I should be interested in a serious discussion on compiler > testing. > > Regards > Chris
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
Regarding gcc for embedded use: the thing I hate the most is unfair comparisons. Keil made a paper some time back that compared an old version of gcc against their newest compiler. Also, they didn't attempt to normalize the optimization switches in both environments, so their gcc code wasn't optimized as well as it could be. I'm not saying Keil tools are no good, and now that they use the Realview compiler in their IDE they have a better solution than they did then, but it's dishonest to trump up an unfair comparison and use that to justify why your tools are the best. The gcc front-end is very good and they do a great job of supporting ANSI standard C. Their code generator and optimizer aren't as good as some on the market, but they're better than Keil says they are, and plenty good for classroom use. In a classroom you need inexpensive tools that work well, a great debugger, and tools that support industry standards. You don't really need the "best" optimized code, nor do most companies for typical embedded applications. Eric
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
David Brown wrote:> Another interesting find from google: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-07/msg00656.htmlInteresting comments. Standard test suites are an eyopener when first run on any compiler for the first time. They find a lot of things, most come as a complete surprise. w..
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
"Eric" <englere_geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1162557055.201247.307270@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Regarding gcc for embedded use: the thing I hate the most is unfair > comparisons. Keil made a paper some time back that compared an old > version of gcc against their newest compiler. Also, they didn't attempt > to normalize the optimization switches in both environments, so their > gcc code wasn't optimized as well as it could be.Another case in point is the Keil Whetstone benchmark results. Usually I don't comment on benchmark results, but this is truly shocking. Whetstone uses double-precision floating point and the beta CARM results that Keil post are for a compiler with only single-precision floats. It should have set alarm bells ringing that their floating point performance was so much better than other language processors. If you do half the work in half the time, what does that say about the product and the person carrying out the benchmark? Keil's benchmarks: http://www.keil.com/benchmks/carm_v0code.htm And if you use a good library with GCC: http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/arm_bench.htm Keil indicate that CARM managed 5.2M WIPS and GCC 0.4M WIPS. We measured 2.4M WIPS on our GCC/library implementation and used doubles against Keil's singles (as CARM didn't support doubles when they produced the benchmarks). Same conclusations can be drawn for the code size comparison. It just shows that there was no real attempt to put others in a good light or provide the sources and build scripts so that others could replicate the results. There's nothing more to add; draw your own conclusions. -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:M3LpRTI8YySFFAsa@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...> In article <454b2043$0$8724$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul > Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes >> >>>>> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that? >>>> >>>>There is a big difference here. You have been dismissing gcc out of >>>>hand, >>>>without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you have >>>>even >>>>tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias (I know >>>>people >>>>can follow the links in your sig.). >>> >>> I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the >>> distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger. >> >>Your point? I used to be a Cub Scout. > > You are assuming that because we both sell compilers I have some sort of > commercial bias but you don't?You have demonstrated your bias clearly pinned to your sleeve. Mine is kept in check. I have never said "I wouldn't recommend <some-other-system> for embedded development" even if I feel that is the appropriate response. When customers ask to compare our system against something else that they are considering, we decline. We do not provide comparative benchmarks. I feel it best that customers decide upon merit of our tools, not on sales patter and uninformed opinion, which is why we support them through the evaluation process. I would also say that representatives from other compiler companies do not make similar comments to yours and show commendable reservation.>>>>, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. The only positive >>>>thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is >>>>significant, but not decisive). >>> >>> I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits >> >>A whistle won't get you anywhere in this office. I don't dress in >>Industry >>Standard Test Suits. When I write code I do it in jeans and a T-shirt. > > What was your comment about not answering the questions and changing the > subject?You brought up apparel. Hope your suits are made from Nomex as things are heating up. :-) And I didn't mention anything about changing subjects.>>> and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) There is no >>> level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue with religion. >> >>You can't argue with an BSI or ISO test certificate, no. Can you point me >>to such a certificate for the compilers you advocate? One of them? > > You can start with the Plum Hall and Perennial test suites?Plum Hall and Perennial are test suites as you point out, but that's all. I asked about a certificate of conformance, or a BSI kite mark, that shows conformance to a standard. The fact that a compiler passes a test suite says nothing about the things you didn't test for.> Off line I should be interested in a serious discussion on compiler > testing.Compiler testing is no different to any other form of testing--create test data, feed compiler, validate output, repeat. -- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
Reply by ●November 3, 20062006-11-03
Walter Banks wrote:> > David Brown wrote: > >> Another interesting find from google: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-07/msg00656.html > > Interesting comments. Standard test suites are an eyopener > when first run on any compiler for the first time. They find > a lot of things, most come as a complete surprise. > > w.. >The mail linked above is from 1998 - I have no idea how much test suite testing has been done on more modern gcc versions, or how gcc's own test suite compares with the big commercial suites. I'd be curious to know, although I don't think it would influence my decisions on which compiler to use at any given time (I fully expect any compiler to work correctly for common code constructs, I manually check the assembly for awkward code such as volatile accesses or interrupt code, and I don't care what the compiler thinks of code worthy of the IOCCC, since I don't write such code).
