Forums

LPC900/80C51 Compiler Toolchain

Started by Unknown June 20, 2007
>> The ARM port >>of GCC for example was neglected for years (with Thumb not working at >>all) until ARM paid for it to be fixed and brought up to date with the >>latest architectures. > > However they brought it up to date and left it there... which is not the > same as actively supporting it.
I was under the impression - possibly mistakenly - that CodeSourcery were the official guardians of ARM GCC, amongst other ports. Cortex-M3 support has been added very recently. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com An IEC 61508 certified real time kernel for safety related systems.
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <FCQfi.7283$G9.2019@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > Michael N. Moran <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >> wilco.dijkstra@ntlworld.com wrote: >>> And this is where I think commercial development has >>> the advantage. Compiler vendors find and pay the best >>> people to do whatever it takes to make the compiler >>> as good as possible (with the idea that this large >>> investment will pay itself off later). I don't see >>> this kind of dedication in open source compilers, as >>> developers usually don't get paid for their work and >>> so don't attract the best people. >> >> This is non-sense. I think you'll find that most of the >> GCC developers are being paid to work on GCC. > > Like Linux. Gcc is now commercial
Free-as-in-speech, not (necessarily) free-as-in-beer. Contrary to popular FUD, Free Software is not about preventing commerce.
>>> The ARM port of GCC for example was neglected for >>> years (with Thumb not working at all) until ARM paid >>> for it to be fixed and brought up to date with the >>> latest architectures. >> >> Demand drives GCC just like demand drives the >> commercial compilers. > > The problem is that the FOSS Devotees think that everyone > who does any work on GCC is a Devotee.
<pictures a guy singing with a flower pot on his head> "Correct at will..." :-) What difference does that make?
> There are many cynical non-belivers who are not helping > in order to help the faith..... they have other > objectives and don't care if FOSS sinks or swims.
Huh? Do you mean: There are many cynical non-believers who are not helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead helping because they have other objectives. These same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks or swims. If this is what you meant then ... "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. Regardless of their objectives, these people must find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK with the Free Software people and well within their "belief system." -- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918 5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460 Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." The Eagles, "Already Gone" The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
Chris Hills wrote:
> However much FOSS is effectively becoming commercial now > anyway.
Whatever that means. As long as the source code remains open that's great!
> The only difference is the core programmers don't get > paid
Chris, that's just crap. Perhaps you should follow the development mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org for a while and get a clue, instead of spewing nonsense like that. -- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918 5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460 Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." The Eagles, "Already Gone" The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
In article <p9Sfi.3521$s8.2438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran 
<mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes
>Chris Hills wrote: >> In article <FCQfi.7283$G9.2019@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, >> Michael N. Moran <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >>> wilco.dijkstra@ntlworld.com wrote: >>>> And this is where I think commercial development has >>>> the advantage. Compiler vendors find and pay the best >>>> people to do whatever it takes to make the compiler >>>> as good as possible (with the idea that this large >>>> investment will pay itself off later). I don't see >>>> this kind of dedication in open source compilers, as >>>> developers usually don't get paid for their work and >>>> so don't attract the best people. >>> This is non-sense. I think you'll find that most of the >>> GCC developers are being paid to work on GCC. >> Like Linux. Gcc is now commercial > >Free-as-in-speech, not (necessarily) free-as-in-beer. >Contrary to popular FUD, Free Software is not about >preventing commerce. > >>>> The ARM port of GCC for example was neglected for >>>> years (with Thumb not working at all) until ARM paid >>>> for it to be fixed and brought up to date with the >>>> latest architectures. >>> Demand drives GCC just like demand drives the >>> commercial compilers. >> The problem is that the FOSS Devotees think that everyone >> who does any work on GCC is a Devotee. > ><pictures a guy singing with a flower pot on his head> >"Correct at will..." :-) > >What difference does that make? > >> There are many cynical non-belivers who are not helping >> in order to help the faith..... they have other >> objectives and don't care if FOSS sinks or swims. > >Huh? Do you mean: > > There are many cynical non-believers who are not > helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead > helping because they have other objectives. These > same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks > or swims. > >If this is what you meant then ... > >"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. > >Regardless of their objectives, these people must >find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK >with the Free Software people and well within their >"belief system."
To give you some idea the US military used that strategy in Afghanistan and trained Al-qeada and others.... Look where it got them! -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <p9Sfi.3521$s8.2438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran > <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >> Huh? Do you mean: >> >> There are many cynical non-believers who are not >> helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead >> helping because they have other objectives. These >> same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks >> or swims. >> >> If this is what you meant then ... >> >> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. >> >> Regardless of their objectives, these people must >> find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK >> with the Free Software people and well within their >> "belief system." > > To give you some idea the US military used that strategy in Afghanistan > and trained Al-qeada and others.... Look where it got them!
Are you suggesting that "these people" are actively sabotaging GCC? -- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918 5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460 Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." The Eagles, "Already Gone" The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
In article <%pTfi.2716$da.1741@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran 
<mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes
>Chris Hills wrote: >> In article <p9Sfi.3521$s8.2438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. >>Moran <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >>> Huh? Do you mean: >>> >>> There are many cynical non-believers who are not >>> helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead >>> helping because they have other objectives. These >>> same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks >>> or swims. >>> >>> If this is what you meant then ... >>> >>> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. >>> >>> Regardless of their objectives, these people must >>> find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK >>> with the Free Software people and well within their >>> "belief system." >> To give you some idea the US military used that strategy in >>Afghanistan and trained Al-qeada and others.... Look where it got them! > >Are you suggesting that "these people" are actively >sabotaging GCC?
Not in the slightest. I did not say or even suggest that. In Afghanistan when the US trained AQ they worked for the US Very well for some years. Both wanted the USSR out of Afghanistan. However AQ also wanted the US out of other places but it put that on hold for the duration. Just because for a short time they travel the same path does not mean they are on your side or even agree with your principals. Laterin a different situation they may be actively against you. Just look at the situation with FOSS at the moment. Linux and FSF can't agree GPL3 whilst other Linux distros are acutely signing agreements with the Great Satan (MS :-) Not everything is as it may seem at first sight. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <%pTfi.2716$da.1741@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran > <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >> Chris Hills wrote: >>> In article <p9Sfi.3521$s8.2438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. >>> Moran <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >>>> Huh? Do you mean: >>>> >>>> There are many cynical non-believers who are not >>>> helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead >>>> helping because they have other objectives. These >>>> same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks >>>> or swims. >>>> >>>> If this is what you meant then ... >>>> >>>> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. >>>> >>>> Regardless of their objectives, these people must >>>> find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK >>>> with the Free Software people and well within their >>>> "belief system." >>> To give you some idea the US military used that strategy in >>> Afghanistan and trained Al-qeada and others.... Look where it got them! >> >> Are you suggesting that "these people" are actively >> sabotaging GCC? > > Not in the slightest. I did not say or even suggest that. > > In Afghanistan when the US trained AQ they worked for the US Very well > for some years. Both wanted the USSR out of Afghanistan. However AQ also > wanted the US out of other places but it put that on hold for the duration. > > Just because for a short time they travel the same path does not mean > they are on your side or even agree with your principals. Laterin a > different situation they may be actively against you.
OK. So there may be people contributing to Free Software who will one day turn against it, or already have. How does this affect the quality of GCC?
> Just look at the situation with FOSS at the moment. Linux and FSF > can't agree GPL3 whilst other Linux distros are acutely signing > agreements with the Great Satan (MS :-)
So what is your point? The existing source code will remain available. You are free to maintain the source and use it according to the terms of the current license. Again, how does this affect the quality of GCC? -- Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918 5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460 Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org "So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." The Eagles, "Already Gone" The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:RVYOp7J5fAgGFAxk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <%pTfi.2716$da.1741@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran > <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >>Chris Hills wrote: >>> In article <p9Sfi.3521$s8.2438@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael N. Moran >>> <mnmoran@bellsouth.net> writes >>>> Huh? Do you mean: >>>> >>>> There are many cynical non-believers who are not >>>> helping in order to keep the faith, but are instead >>>> helping because they have other objectives. These >>>> same cynical non-believers don't care if FOSS sinks >>>> or swims. >>>> >>>> If this is what you meant then ... >>>> >>>> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes to mind. >>>> >>>> Regardless of their objectives, these people must >>>> find some advantage in helping GCC. That's OK >>>> with the Free Software people and well within their >>>> "belief system." >>> To give you some idea the US military used that strategy in >>> Afghanistan and trained Al-qeada and others.... Look where it got them! >> >>Are you suggesting that "these people" are actively >>sabotaging GCC? > > Not in the slightest. I did not say or even suggest that. > > In Afghanistan when the US trained AQ they worked for the US Very well > for some years. Both wanted the USSR out of Afghanistan. However AQ also > wanted the US out of other places but it put that on hold for the > duration. > > Just because for a short time they travel the same path does not mean they > are on your side or even agree with your principals. Laterin a different > situation they may be actively against you. > > Just look at the situation with FOSS at the moment. Linux and FSF can't > agree GPL3 whilst other Linux distros are acutely signing agreements with > the Great Satan (MS :-) > > Not everything is as it may seem at first sight.
Do you really think this is a relevant angle for your argument? Where are you getting your shrooms from :o) -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com An IEC 61508 certified real time kernel for safety related systems.
On 25 Jun, 17:06, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@address.com> wrote:
> >> The ARM port > >>of GCC for example was neglected for years (with Thumb not working at > >>all) until ARM paid for it to be fixed and brought up to date with the > >>latest architectures. > > > However they brought it up to date and left it there... which is not the > > same as actively supporting it. > > I was under the impression - possibly mistakenly - that CodeSourcery were > the official guardians of ARM GCC, amongst other ports. Cortex-M3 support > has been added very recently.
You're entirely right. It is basic support though, not comparable with the amount of effort that went into the Thumb-2 backend in the ARM compiler. Wilco
On 25 Jun, 15:50, "Michael N. Moran" <mnmo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> wilco.dijks...@ntlworld.com wrote: > > And this is where I think commercial development has the > > advantage. Compiler vendors find and pay the best people > > to do whatever it takes to make the compiler as good as > > possible (with the idea that this large investment will > > pay itself off later). I don't see this kind of > > dedication in open source compilers, as developers > > usually don't get paid for their work and so don't > > attract the best people. > > This is non-sense. I think you'll find that most of the GCC > developers are being paid to work on GCC. > > Just look at the GCC steering committee: > <http://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html> > > Next, you may want to look at the list of contributers: > <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.html>
I'd be surprised if the number of paid contributors is larger than the unpaid ones, or are you counting employees of companies whose main business is not open source? How many companies are there whose main business is developing or maintaining GCC? Do they pay competitive rates to hire top compiler experts? Big businesses have their reasons for contributing, but most have their own commercial compilers already - and that is where much of the effort goes.
> While GCC work *may* be done by anyone, serious > development and maintenance of this cornerstone of > Free Software is mostly done by paid skilled professionals, > whose employers understand the value of the GCC.
If that was true I would expect GCC to be far better than it is today.
>From what I've seen issues can take a long time to fix. I remember the
__irq issue on ARM that went unfixed for quite a while (numerous people encountered that one), and I think the register allocator still has problems in generating many unnecessary move instructions since a change several years ago. In a commercial environment these would be "must fix before release" kind of bugs. Other things like -O0 generating ridiculously inefficient code and emitting frame pointers when few compilers do so today do not instill a professional image. I once read a paper that showed a 5% codesize improvement on ARM by changing a few defaults. Again, that was a few years ago, has it been implemented yet?
> > The ARM port of GCC for example was neglected for years > > (with Thumb not working at all) until ARM paid for it to > > be fixed and brought up to date with the latest > > architectures. > > Demand drives GCC just like demand drives the commercial > compilers.
It would be good if GCC was developed more like a commercial compiler indeed. Maybe that is what will happen in the future, but I don't think it is anywhere near yet. GCC may have lots of fashionable optimizations but I'd prefer stuff to work reliably and efficiently first. Wilco