ARM IDE & kit similar to CCS for PIC's?

In article <m2iec35i6is4theukbugsc1evkdjd1g5qp@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan 
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes
>More pieces....
>
>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:55:04 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ip5cc3p6qsflap5squ2d7bn4e0k241ogvj@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan
>><jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes
>><snip>
>>
>>>For all that, the JTAG debugger tools are often not what one might
>>>expect out of a piece of hardware.  The first warning should be, I
>>>suppose, that these tools are directly provided BY a compiler vendor
>>>(Keil, for example) or provided somewhat indirectly but strongly
>>>pushed by other compiler vendors (IAR, for example.)  As a consequence
>>>of their own business needs, I think, the hardware isn't treated
>>>business-wise as hardware tools often are -- well documented for those
>>>wishing to write their own software to access the full features of the
>>>hardware -- but instead as a compiler sales tool.
>>
>>The Keil and IAR HW tools are there specifically to support their
>>software. Why would Keil IAR,  etc provide tools to support someone
>>else's compilers and debuggers.
>
>I'm not saying they should.  They can choose to operate any way they
>want to.  I

OK we agree...

They are producing tools to support their software. They do not have to 
produce anything that works with GCC or GDB. If they do they can charge 
for it. They do not have to make the protocols or specs open or free.

All you are asking for is commercial companies to work fro free so you 
don't have to spend money when it is not in their interests to do so.

There is nothing stopping you producing a JTAG and the Sw. Making the Sw 
free and the JTAG low costs fro hobby users if YOU want that.  No one 
else has to.


>As I've started to survey the field here, I've found that there remain
>a number of intentionally designed-in limitations and other more

There are limitations to everything in this world. You can get tools 
without the limitations you are talking about but you have to find the 
ones for the market you are looking at.

>subtle ones (such as RTCK or firmware/hardware differences in a
>product only listed as JLINK without any disclosure of which one of
>myriad versions is being offered.)

Ask them.


>  It's a complex thing to navigate
>for a hobbyist or student.

Then research and ask questions.

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

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:52:48 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <sfkec3pjatdnkoqcq8caeuc3f3f3vuif1r@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan 
><jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes

>>Name a few that are (1) USB based, (2) support RTCK, (3) are well
>>documented for those wishing to write their own software to access the
>>full features of the hardware/firmware included, and (4) have
>>unfettered gdb servers available for them in source form so that they
>>can be compiled on various environments and modified, as needed.
>
>No idea off the top of my head. Try google, source forge etc. There is 
>(was) at least one FOOS Jtag on there that I know of.
>
>No idea if it is USB, it was parallel.
>
>NO ONE is under any requirement to produce anything with gbb or gcc 
>support. If they do they can charge for it. Nothing says anyone must 
>produce free/FOSS tools for hobby users.

I think you've abundantly made my point for me.  Thanks.  I'll leave
it there.  No point beating a dead horse, so to speak.

Jon

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:52:48 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>1 They are not in the hobby market.

That becomes clear as one investigates deeper, of course.  But it
doesn't cause me to change anything I said.

>2 Their student packages work with the FREE eval versions of their 
>compilers.

Which are limited.  Some students and hobbyists will want to make far
more extensive use of the tools.  Which, as you say, means they need
to look elsewhere.  No argument.

Who is included in their target and who is specifically excluded is
not very clear from reading the sites.  I could wish for a clearer
annunciation.  I suspect that some folks start out expecting one
thing, buy such units, find out the details later, and are only then
sadly disabused of prior misconceptions.

An earlier point I made was different from this, more focused on my
surprises about finding a market area where I anticipated seeing at
least several good USB JTAG alternatives, for hobbyists and students,
to those motivated primarily as a compiler sales tool.  I'd still like
to see some examples that are (1) USB based, (2) support RTCK, (3) are
well documented for those wishing to write their own software to
access the full features of the hardware/firmware included, and (4)
have unfettered gdb servers available for them in source form so that
they can be compiled on various environments and modified, as needed.

Since I'm pretty new to this area and since you cannot recall any,
perhaps someone else can help identify one.

Jon

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:59:05 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <m2iec35i6is4theukbugsc1evkdjd1g5qp@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan 
><jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes

>>As I've started to survey the field here, I've found that there remain
>>a number of intentionally designed-in limitations and other more
>
>There are limitations to everything in this world. You can get tools 
>without the limitations you are talking about but you have to find the 
>ones for the market you are looking at.
>
>>subtle ones (such as RTCK or firmware/hardware differences in a
>>product only listed as JLINK without any disclosure of which one of
>>myriad versions is being offered.)
>
>Ask them.

Ask who, what?  You snipped what I was saying and because of that I'm
not even sure what particular thing you are addressing.

If you are talking about Segger and Keil, etc., I've indeed had to
make the phone calls and ask.  I've also called and emailed a number
of other folks, as well.  Including posting in a yahoo group or two
about it.  So far, I don't find you disagreeing with me on the facts.
Just disagreeing about some wrong idea you perceive about me -- that I
want to force commercial companies to slit their own throats.  You go
on and on about that misconception and cannot seem to follow what I'm
actually pointing out, as a result.

>>It's a complex thing to navigate for a hobbyist or student.
>
>Then research and ask questions.

Hmm..  I think I am.

Jon

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:U6H$S0CCpdxGFArD@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> You do your own library?
>>
>>Of course.  This is clearly stated as one of the benefits of using our
>>tools.  In this way commercial customers can be sure that their 
>>application
>>will not be covered by a GPL or LGPL license inherited from the inclusion 
>>of
>>GPL/LGPL code in the library they link in.
>
> Does this mean that if you link in a GPL library then you have to release 
> the source of the application?

This is such a basic question I am aghast that you have asked it.

>  That would mean that you could not use GCC with a GPL licence for 
> commercial work. I assume I have miss understood somewhere?

You got that right--you have indeed misunderstood.  Source covered by the 
GPL, without a license exemption, says that anything linked and DISTRIBUTED 
with in binary form requires release of the source to alllow rebuild and 
relinks.  The GPL kicks in when you start making copies, modification, or 
distributions only, any other activity is outside the scope of the license. 
License exemptions are not uncommon, I can think immediately of FreeRTOS and 
Qt which are at least dual-licensed.

>>> Most compilers come with a multitude of BSP's and projects even on the
>>> free versions of the other commercial compilers.
>>
>>...but I'm pretty much sure they don't offer the range of BSPs that we
>>provide.
>
> I think some do.

...such as?  I count 78 BSPs that we have made public.

>> I regularly survey the development tools landscape.  The fact that
>>anybody can write and distribute a BSP for CrossWorks, which you can just
>>plug in, pretty much nails us as fairly unique.
>
> Hardly. The same applies to anyone.

You misunderstand the context of BSP here.  The BSP in CrossWorks for ARM 
allows you to create projects using a wizard-style interface.  I'm not 
talking of just putting something together and releasing source/loader of a 
project which you copy from to get a new project.  CrossWorks is more 
sophisticated than that, allowing you to view the board support packages 
you've installed, see their documentation, and so on, all from within the 
IDE.  I haven't seen anything like it in the other ARM IDEs I've looked at.

-- Paul.

John Devereux wrote:
> Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
> 
>> In article <13c86o2ejpq04b5@corp.supernews.com>, Paul Curtis
>> <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Of course.  This is clearly stated as one of the benefits of using our
>>> tools.  In this way commercial customers can be sure that their application
>>> will not be covered by a GPL or LGPL license inherited from the inclusion of
>>> GPL/LGPL code in the library they link in.
>> Does this mean that if you link in a GPL library then you have to
>> release the source of the application?  That would mean that you could
>> not use GCC with a GPL licence for commercial work. I assume I have
>> miss understood somewhere?
> 
> No, that is the intent of the GPL (as I understand it).
> 
> *However* you will find that the free libraries used for "embedded"
> applications are *not* in fact GPL licensed, so that they can be used
> in proprietary applications.
> 

To elaborate on that, the pure GPL is seldom used for *any* libraries 
(although the FSF keep trying to persuade people to use it for 
libraries).  Some libraries use a modified GPL, such as FreeRTOS or the 
library code within gcc (as you quoted below).  Many free libraries for 
non-embedded applications use the LGPL, which specifically allows the 
rest of the code to be of any license, as long as the linking to the 
LGPL code is done dynamically (i.e., the end user is free to update or 
improve the free library code regardless of the application binary). 
Libraries aimed at embedded systems usually do not have any such 
restrictions (though they might have others, such as a requirement that 
modifications to the library source be made freely available).

It is quite possible, however, for vendors to release GPL'ed versions of 
the libraries (or RTOS, or other code) precisely so that it cannot be 
used for closed source development, while also releasing the same 
libraries under a different license (at a cost) that allows your code to 
use any license.  A good example of this is the QT libraries from 
TrollTech.  I have no idea whether the same thing applies to Rowley's 
"hobby" version of their ARM compiler - it would certainly be a 
perfectly good business model to do so, and in keeping with the goals of 
open source and of a commercial business.

> E.g, from part of the gcc library:
> 
> "In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
> Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
> compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
> and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
> from the use of this file.  (The General Public License restrictions
> do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
> the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
> executable."
> 

In article <13cifog6khrv9fd@corp.supernews.com>, Paul Curtis 
<plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:U6H$S0CCpdxGFArD@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> You do your own library?
>>>
>>>Of course.  This is clearly stated as one of the benefits of using our
>>>tools.  In this way commercial customers can be sure that their
>>>application
>>>will not be covered by a GPL or LGPL license inherited from the inclusion
>>>of
>>>GPL/LGPL code in the library they link in.
>>
>> Does this mean that if you link in a GPL library then you have to release
>> the source of the application?
>
>This is such a basic question I am aghast that you have asked it.

I wanted to clarify all the points  so that we all have the same 
understanding. I have found that "what everyone knows" is usually wrong.

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

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message 
news:46c94423$0$3192$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
> John Devereux wrote:

< snip >

> It is quite possible, however, for vendors to release GPL'ed versions of 
> the libraries (or RTOS, or other code) precisely so that it cannot be used 
> for closed source development, while also releasing the same libraries 
> under a different license (at a cost) that allows your code to use any 
> license.  A good example of this is the QT libraries from TrollTech.  I 
> have no idea whether the same thing applies to Rowley's "hobby" version of 
> their ARM compiler - it would certainly be a perfectly good business model 
> to do so, and in keeping with the goals of open source and of a commercial 
> business.

I have no problem with customers developing source code with CrossWorks for 
their own use and to share with other hobbyists using a Personal License. 
MakingThings and the Make Controller is a good example, I think--they 
develop their code in CrossWorks and provide it to their customers who can 
use CrossWorks or plain GNU tools to rebuild the application.

The only items that cannot be redistributed are source code and object files 
we ship as part of CrossWorks and our Board Support Package sources.  These 
sources are clearly marked with copyright noticies.

I must admit that I have not considered a dual license for our source code.

-- Paul.

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <sfkec3pjatdnkoqcq8caeuc3f3f3vuif1r@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan 
> <jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:09:23 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>
<snip>
> NO ONE is under any requirement to produce anything with gbb or gcc 
> support. If they do they can charge for it. Nothing says anyone must 
> produce free/FOSS tools for hobby users.
> 

Just a small point in this argument - you *are* aware that professionals 
choose to use free and open source, are you not?  For example, some 
professionals *choose* to use Linux or FreeBSD as their development 
platform?  And some professionals *choose* to use free and open source 
development tools?  And some professionals *choose* to use free and open 
source on their embedded targets?  Some people make their choices based 
entirely on purchase cost price (or lack thereof), but others make their 
choices based on the quality of the tools, how the tools fit in with 
their environment, the quality of the support, the licensing costs or 
requirements, the long-term sustainability of the toolset, and many 
other factors.

Here's a couple of links for you (sorry for the long links - some 
websites have horrible page reference schemes):

http://www.ghs.com/articles/linux_faq.html
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0l320822D0
http://www.abatron.ch/products/xr/aspx/r.1/Sv.63713d7b43526570313d7b693d394f54565743484b33513244474b394a594556537d7d/rx/products_detail.htm
http://www.codesourcery.com/
http://www.rtems.com/support.html
http://www.rtems.com/wiki/index.php/Timeline

You might also want to consider whether it is appropriate for you to 
base your business on a website running an open source webserver, 
running on an open source operating system (a free clone of a commercial 
open source operating system, no less), if free and open source software 
is merely for hobby users or those too mean to pay for "proper" software.

There are times when an open source solution is the right choice, and 
times when when a closed source solution is the right choice.  And 
sometimes you want a free or lost cost solution, sometimes you can 
budget for a high price, high quality solution - totally independently 
of the open/closed decision.  Any vendor with a business sense would 
look at open source (either as a host platform, or in terms of 
supporting gcc/gdb) as an opportunity, and would assess the worth of 
potential customers against the cost of developing or re-selling the 
tools - only a fool would write them off on the basis of prejudice.

mvh.,

David

Op Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:09:02 +0200 schreef Jonathan Kirwan  
<jkirwan@easystreet.com>:
> Name a few that are (1) USB based, (2) support RTCK, (3) are well
> documented for those wishing to write their own software to access the
> full features of the hardware/firmware included, and (4) have
> unfettered gdb servers available for them in source form so that they
> can be compiled on various environments and modified, as needed.

I know one tool vendor that comes very close to your requirements:  
iSYSTEM.  They make several ARM emulators in the range from tens to  
thousands of euros, and a free (of charge) Windows IDE.  Your requirements:
1. Yes. (Also Ethernet.)
2. Yes. (Also scan chain options, idle TCK's and a different speed during  
init.)
3. Yes. (But Windows API's only.)
4. Not quite.  But a GDB server is supported as a plug-in DLL, and with  
the Windows API you could write your own GDB server.



-- 
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/