Opinions on Rowley CrossWorks for ARM

Paul Keinanen wrote:

> >> I am curious, what for example?
>
> The only problem I can think of is saving the (code space) return
> address into the data address space RAM.

Close it can be done but it requires some application planning.

> Usually even Harvard architecture have some means of transferring data
> between code and data space, if these PICs do not have such feature,
> implementing C would be problematic.

Data can be transferred from ROM to data space and in some parts
the ROM can be written from the application parts

w..

In article <454b5221$0$8092$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>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,

The problem with GCC is which version. You can not test Gcc per say. 
Everyone's version is different. Also as it is supplied in source code 
form you can only apply the test results to the actual binary you 
tested.

For commercial compilers this is not a problem as they distribute only 
the binary and for any given compiler there is only one binary.

> or how gcc's own test suite compares with the big commercial suites. 
>I'd be curious to know,

That might be interesting. Quite a few people know the answer to that 
but I doubt any will put the answer on here for many reasons.

>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,

Define "correctly"  I am serious here. What do you define as the correct 
set of rules?

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

In article <454C376C.93036C90@bytecraft.com>, walter@bytecraft.com 
says...
> 
> 
> CBFalconer wrote:
> 
> > For example, where a compiler is aimed at a PIC many things are simply
> > not feasible.
> 
> I am curious, what for example?

I seem to recall some of the minimum translation requirements would be 
an issue.  Isn't there a minimum maximal length string restriction?

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <454B6A26.BD824095@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
> The problem with the gcc test suite is that it is geared to the gcc
> 'standard', rather than the ISO standard.  A test suite should be
> open-source, and there should probably be several of them (with
> some commonality), one each for C90, C99, and C0X.  The tests
> should be clearly tied to the standard.  There are several classes
> of tests needed, i.e. conformance, detection of errors, and
> quality.  The last will be controversial.
> 
> The unfortunate experience with the Pascal test-suite is a
> warning.  This was excellent, but handed over to some British firm
> (I forget the name) and basically lost.  It included portable means
> of selecting individual tests, and of running an overall check. 
> Thus GPL licencing is essential.  

I rather like the idea.  Does this mean you are volunteering to start 
it? :)

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robert Adsett wrote:
> In article <454B6A26.BD824095@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
> 
>> The problem with the gcc test suite is that it is geared to the gcc
>> 'standard', rather than the ISO standard.  A test suite should be
>> open-source, and there should probably be several of them (with
>> some commonality), one each for C90, C99, and C0X.  The tests
>> should be clearly tied to the standard.  There are several classes
>> of tests needed, i.e. conformance, detection of errors, and
>> quality.  The last will be controversial.
>>
>> The unfortunate experience with the Pascal test-suite is a
>> warning.  This was excellent, but handed over to some British firm
>> (I forget the name) and basically lost.  It included portable means
>> of selecting individual tests, and of running an overall check.
>> Thus GPL licencing is essential.
> 
> I rather like the idea.  Does this mean you are volunteering to start
> it? :)

If I were 20 years younger and in good health, I would.  As it is I
can only offer advice.  Been a lot a places, and seen a lot of
mistakes.  The health can, I hope, be fixed.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

In article <454CFAE6.6D5065F6@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
> Robert Adsett wrote:
> > I rather like the idea.  Does this mean you are volunteering to start
> > it? :)
> 
> If I were 20 years younger and in good health, I would.  As it is I
> can only offer advice.  Been a lot a places, and seen a lot of
> mistakes.  The health can, I hope, be fixed.

Here's hoping.  Been through, a thankfully light, dose of that myself.

Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer wrote:
> Robert Adsett wrote:
>> In article <454B6A26.BD824095@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> The problem with the gcc test suite is that it is geared to the gcc
>>> 'standard', rather than the ISO standard.  A test suite should be
>>> open-source, and there should probably be several of them (with
>>> some commonality), one each for C90, C99, and C0X.  The tests
>>> should be clearly tied to the standard.  There are several classes
>>> of tests needed, i.e. conformance, detection of errors, and
>>> quality.  The last will be controversial.
>>>
>>> The unfortunate experience with the Pascal test-suite is a
>>> warning.  This was excellent, but handed over to some British firm
>>> (I forget the name) and basically lost.  It included portable means
>>> of selecting individual tests, and of running an overall check.
>>> Thus GPL licencing is essential.
>> I rather like the idea.  Does this mean you are volunteering to start
>> it? :)
> 
> If I were 20 years younger and in good health, I would.  As it is I
> can only offer advice.  Been a lot a places, and seen a lot of
> mistakes.  The health can, I hope, be fixed.
> 
We don't get younger so you can forget that one. :-) I do hope you 
regain your good health. Hang in there. Older is usually better, when 
you consider the alternative.

-- 
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                     --- Albert Einstein ---

Robert Adsett said:

> In article <454C376C.93036C90@bytecraft.com>, walter@bytecraft.com
> says...
>> 
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>> 
>> > For example, where a compiler is aimed at a PIC many things are simply
>> > not feasible.
>> 
>> I am curious, what for example?
> 
> I seem to recall some of the minimum translation requirements would be
> an issue.  Isn't there a minimum maximal length string restriction?

In C90, the implementation must support a minimum of 509 characters in a 
logical source line and in a character string literal. 509 is also the 
minimum value for the maximum number of characters produced by any single 
fprintf conversion.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Robert Adsett wrote:

> > CBFalconer wrote:
> >
> > > For example, where a compiler is aimed at a PIC many things are simply
> > > not feasible.
> >
> > I am curious, what for example?
>
> I seem to recall some of the minimum translation requirements would be
> an issue.  Isn't there a minimum maximal length string restriction?

Good point combined with Richard's comment on fprintf. It is possible
to implement around this limit on processors like the PIC but I do not
know of anyone (including us) who have done so..

w..

On 2006-11-05, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> Robert Adsett wrote:
>
>> > CBFalconer wrote:
>> >
>> > > For example, where a compiler is aimed at a PIC many things are simply
>> > > not feasible.
>> >
>> > I am curious, what for example?
>>
>> I seem to recall some of the minimum translation requirements would be
>> an issue.  Isn't there a minimum maximal length string restriction?
>
> Good point combined with Richard's comment on fprintf. 

There is no requirement to implement fprintf on a freestanding
implementation.

> It is possible
> to implement around this limit on processors like the PIC but I do not
> know of anyone (including us) who have done so..

I just compiled a 4,000 character string with Hi-Tech's compiler for a
16F877A.  It worked fine.

-- 
John W. Temples, III