Embedded C Compiler On Linux Targeting Motorola 68K

In message <47630911$0$3217$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes
>msg wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Better yet, send them a PO for an IA32 Linux version.  When
>>> somebody calls and tells you they have a Solaris version but
>>> not a Linux version, thell them you saw that but thought they
>>> were joking. It's about time they pulled their head out of the
>>> sand and joined the rest of us in the 21st Century.
>>>
>>  As a contented user of Solaris/SPARC, I am personally offended
>> by such inflammatory comments. Linux is in many ways a new
>> religion of a certain generation; as with all religions,
>> intolerance can become a problem.
>>  I use Linux when it is appropriate to a specific application,
>> but for robustness, reliability and canonical implementation,
>> Solaris/SVR4 Unix is still a gold standard.
>>  Regards,
>>  Michael
>
>Regardless of the advantages of SPARC and/or Solaris (I haven't tried 
>either, so I can't comment), it is still absurd that a company would 
>support a compiler on Solaris/SPARC and not on Linux.

Absolutely not. Which is probably why they haven't done it


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

In message <4762FB60.4E46AAF1@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer 
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes
>Grant Edwards wrote:
>> Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> <grante@visi.com> writes
>>>> Bob <StephensDigital@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>... snip ...
>>>>
>>>>> Tasking is now owned by Altium FWIW.
>>>>
>>>> And they don't support Linux, only Windows and Solaris.  If
>>>> you're really in a bind, you I suppose could run Windows or
>>>> Solaris on a VM...
>>>
>>> You could of course remove the Linux and run the Free Solaris
>>> from Sun
>>
>> Before doing that you might want to check with to see if IA32
>> Solaris is supported by Altium or not.  It could be that when
>> Altium says Sun/Solaris what they mean is SPARC/Solaris.
>>
>> Better yet, send them a PO for an IA32 Linux version.  When
>> somebody calls and tells you they have a Solaris version but
>> not a Linux version, thell them you saw that but thought they
>> were joking. It's about time they pulled their head out of the
>> sand and joined the rest of us in the 21st Century.
>>
>> I'll admit that there might be a business case for doing like
>> IAR does and supporting Windows and not Unix.  But to support
>> Windows and Solaris instead of Windows and Linux seems like a
>> decision that hasn't made sense for over a decade.
>
>Of course it is quite possible that Altium (whoever they may be)

That's aright we realise you have a limited view of the industry :-)

>has the Solaris compiler, but no personnel who understands how it
>works or is capable of modifying or adapting it.

Not true.


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

Chris Hills wrote:
> In message <47630911$0$3217$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
> <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes
>> msg wrote:
>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Better yet, send them a PO for an IA32 Linux version.  When
>>>> somebody calls and tells you they have a Solaris version but
>>>> not a Linux version, thell them you saw that but thought they
>>>> were joking. It's about time they pulled their head out of the
>>>> sand and joined the rest of us in the 21st Century.
>>>>
>>>  As a contented user of Solaris/SPARC, I am personally offended
>>> by such inflammatory comments. Linux is in many ways a new
>>> religion of a certain generation; as with all religions,
>>> intolerance can become a problem.
>>>  I use Linux when it is appropriate to a specific application,
>>> but for robustness, reliability and canonical implementation,
>>> Solaris/SVR4 Unix is still a gold standard.
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Michael
>>
>> Regardless of the advantages of SPARC and/or Solaris (I haven't tried 
>> either, so I can't comment), it is still absurd that a company would 
>> support a compiler on Solaris/SPARC and not on Linux.
> 
> Absolutely not. Which is probably why they haven't done it
> 

Other than your knee-jerk reaction against anything open source, do you 
have any actual *logic* for a company to support a Solaris tool and not 
a Linux version?  I'm quite happy to accept that Solaris is a more 
mature system than Linux, and I don't have any evidence to argue against 
it being more stable or reliable.  But there is no doubt that Linux is a 
lot more popular except in a few *very* specialised areas - so good 
business sense suggests a company makes products to run on the targets 
people use.

Or are you suggesting that companies like Altera, Xilinx, Metrowerks, 
Green Hills, and Wind River (to take a few examples off the top of my 
head) have all made bad business decisions by choosing to support Linux 
hosts?

I'm inclined to accept CBFalconer's theory that Altium has bought an 
existing toolchain and don't (yet) have the in-house expertise to fully 
support, integrate and modernise it.

In message <47645e74$0$3221$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes
>
>Other than your knee-jerk reaction against anything open source,

And yours in favour.....

> do you have any actual *logic* for a company to support a Solaris tool 
>and not a Linux version?  I'm quite happy to accept that Solaris is a 
>more mature system than Linux,

Much more mature.

> and I don't have any evidence to argue against it being more stable or 
>reliable.

Yes.... It has vastly more time in critical applications.  At one time 
most of the worlds telephone and Internet system ran on Solaris. I don't 
mean like Apache  but the actual network infrastructure and switches. 
The MTBF was something like 20 years. We had that in 1995.

> But there is no doubt that Linux is a lot more popular except in a few 
>*very* specialised areas - so good business sense suggests a company 
>makes products to run on the targets people use.

This is incorrect. Linux is popular in SOME areas.

>Or are you suggesting that companies like Altera, Xilinx, Metrowerks, 
>Green Hills, and Wind River (to take a few examples off the top of my 
>head) have all made bad business decisions by choosing to support Linux 
>hosts?

Not at all. Very different business model.

>I'm inclined to accept CBFalconer's theory that Altium has bought an 
>existing toolchain and don't (yet) have the in-house expertise to fully 
>support, integrate and modernise it.

I'm not, but then I know  some of the people at Tasking.

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

Chris Hills wrote:
> In message <47645e74$0$3221$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
> <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> writes
>>
>> Other than your knee-jerk reaction against anything open source,
> 
> And yours in favour.....
> 

All other things being equal, I prefer to use open source software 
because I prefer the flexibility it gives me, and I prefer the open 
development model for software running on a PC.  But I'm not religious 
about it - I'll use whatever software is most appropriate for the job. 
So I don't have a problem with a compiler company making software for 
Solaris, and I understand why they might only target Windows - my 
question is whether there is any good reason for targeting Solaris and 
not Linux as well.

>> do you have any actual *logic* for a company to support a Solaris tool 
>> and not a Linux version?  I'm quite happy to accept that Solaris is a 
>> more mature system than Linux,
> 
> Much more mature.
> 
>> and I don't have any evidence to argue against it being more stable or 
>> reliable.
> 
> Yes.... It has vastly more time in critical applications.  At one time 
> most of the worlds telephone and Internet system ran on Solaris. I don't 
> mean like Apache  but the actual network infrastructure and switches. 
> The MTBF was something like 20 years. We had that in 1995.
> 

At one time, critical applications were run on serious hardware and 
solid operating systems (Solaris was considered a cheap and cheerful 
system - people used VMS and various IBM systems when they wanted top of 
the range reliability).  But the sort of Solaris people run on 
workstations these days is not measurably more reliable than Linux - 
they are both as stable as their users and the applications run on them. 
  Servers are a different matter, of course, since the applications are 
much more controlled - both will be as stable and reliable as the 
hardware they run on.

>> But there is no doubt that Linux is a lot more popular except in a few 
>> *very* specialised areas - so good business sense suggests a company 
>> makes products to run on the targets people use.
> 
> This is incorrect. Linux is popular in SOME areas.
> 

Linux is vastly more popular than Solaris in almost every area.  That's 
why Sun supports Linux as well as Solaris.

>> Or are you suggesting that companies like Altera, Xilinx, Metrowerks, 
>> Green Hills, and Wind River (to take a few examples off the top of my 
>> head) have all made bad business decisions by choosing to support 
>> Linux hosts?
> 
> Not at all. Very different business model.
> 

There is a hefty overlap in these markets, is there not?

>> I'm inclined to accept CBFalconer's theory that Altium has bought an 
>> existing toolchain and don't (yet) have the in-house expertise to 
>> fully support, integrate and modernise it.
> 
> I'm not, but then I know  some of the people at Tasking.
> 

David Brown wrote:

> Chris Hills wrote:

<snip>

> All other things being equal, I prefer to use open source software 
> because I prefer the flexibility it gives me, and I prefer the open 
> development model for software running on a PC.

It makes little difference to the average PC user, but for apps that
must conform to a variety of reliability standards, wouldn't you
agree that a top-down model of development is best? Take any open-
source RTOS for example; there is often the open development version
and the certified closed version which has passed various certifications.

In any case, much of the AT&T codebase is present in OpenSolaris and
everyone can benefit from its elegance and maturity; also the BSD
codebase stands as a more mature and arguably more efficient programming
effort than can be found in Linux.

If major open-source projects were run by a core groups of people
who have been vetted by certification bodies and who ran the projects
using proven project-management methods and who employed standards
in merging and releasing submitted works, it would be easier to
promote them for general acceptance. The ad-hoc approach taken by
most of these doesn't lend itself to reasonable levels of confidence,
unless you expect every user to have the skill and time to analyze
the codebases of each program they employ and willy-nilly upgrade
on every patch or minor release.

In consumer devices this may be of little importance except when
considering lost productivity, but in communications infrastructure,
and areas impacting national product, security and competitiveness,
wouldn't you agree that software security and reliability should be
accorded more importance than it has to date? Closed or open-source,
isn't it about time that software that impacts vast areas of human
endeavor (such as MS Windows on PCs) should be required to pass
suites of security and vulnerability testing?  I'm not one to support
governmental interference in most things, but there will be little
impetus to correct the huge problems plaguing the Internet until
MS is forced to fix its products to stop proliferations of distributed
malware that is choking effective use of e-mail and other services.
Can you even _imagine_ such a thing being permitted during the days
of regulated telecomm as what has happened to the 'net?

Regards,

Michael

msg wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hills wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> All other things being equal, I prefer to use open source software 
>> because I prefer the flexibility it gives me, and I prefer the open 
>> development model for software running on a PC.
> 
> It makes little difference to the average PC user, but for apps that
> must conform to a variety of reliability standards, wouldn't you
> agree that a top-down model of development is best? Take any open-
> source RTOS for example; there is often the open development version
> and the certified closed version which has passed various certifications.
> 
> In any case, much of the AT&T codebase is present in OpenSolaris and
> everyone can benefit from its elegance and maturity; also the BSD
> codebase stands as a more mature and arguably more efficient programming
> effort than can be found in Linux.
> 
> If major open-source projects were run by a core groups of people
> who have been vetted by certification bodies and who ran the projects
> using proven project-management methods and who employed standards
> in merging and releasing submitted works, it would be easier to
> promote them for general acceptance. The ad-hoc approach taken by
> most of these doesn't lend itself to reasonable levels of confidence,
> unless you expect every user to have the skill and time to analyze
> the codebases of each program they employ and willy-nilly upgrade
> on every patch or minor release.
> 

The BSD's have small core groups that handle most of the development, 
and they certainly have a reputation for being solid, reliable and 
secure OS's.  Linux, along with many open source projects, has a much 
more open development model.  It's not quite ad-hoc, but it is very 
unlike closed-source development groups.  However, the quality of the 
code and development process is strongly influenced by the various large 
commercial interests involved - both dedicated companies such as Red 
Hat, and other mixed companies such as IBM and Sun.  Thus a lot of open 
source software is developed by commercial entities, for commercial 
entities, but with an open development model.

> In consumer devices this may be of little importance except when
> considering lost productivity, but in communications infrastructure,
> and areas impacting national product, security and competitiveness,
> wouldn't you agree that software security and reliability should be
> accorded more importance than it has to date? 

Absolutely - there is no doubt that in some areas, security and 
reliability are critical, whereas others need a different balance with 
things like features, cost, or development time.  No one choice of 
priorities suits all software.

> Closed or open-source,
> isn't it about time that software that impacts vast areas of human
> endeavor (such as MS Windows on PCs) should be required to pass
> suites of security and vulnerability testing?  

Again, you'll get no arguments from me here.

The main issue with windows and its lack of security, however, is not so 
much the development model (although it's closed source development 
model certainly makes it worse) or even lack of testing (windows is 
tested far more than any other system - although not necessarily tested 
as well or as completely).  Windows has been developed from a 
single-user, closed environment, non-networked system - all security 
measures have been tacked on as afterthoughts, and in any conflict 
between ease-of-use and security, MS have prioritised ease-of-use. 
Solaris, Linux and BSD, on the other hand, have their design philosophy 
from unix - where multi-user, networking and security have been 
fundamental from the start.  If windows is ever going to be considered a 
secure system, then MS are going to have to throw out the guts and start 
again (or "borrow" a BSD, like Apple did).

 > I'm not one to support
> governmental interference in most things, but there will be little
> impetus to correct the huge problems plaguing the Internet until
> MS is forced to fix its products to stop proliferations of distributed
> malware that is choking effective use of e-mail and other services.
> Can you even _imagine_ such a thing being permitted during the days
> of regulated telecomm as what has happened to the 'net?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

>Other than your knee-jerk reaction against anything open source, do you 
>have any actual *logic* for a company to support a Solaris tool and not 
>a Linux version?

Could it just be that people who use Solaris are more willing to
pay for software than people who use Linux?

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:53 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
> 
>> Other than your knee-jerk reaction against anything open source, do you 
>> have any actual *logic* for a company to support a Solaris tool and not 
>> a Linux version?
> 
> Could it just be that people who use Solaris are more willing to
> pay for software than people who use Linux?
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 

It's conceivable, but most engineering professionals are happy to pay 
for tools (software or hardware) that do a good job and provide value 
for money.  People *do* buy software that runs on Linux - just as people 
run free (as in "beer" and/or as in "money") software on Windows and 
Solaris.  I don't think many people would expect to get a compiler from 
Tasking for free just because it runs on Linux.

Just now, Michael never pulls until Haron bangs the basic flat 
o'clock.  Neil widens, then Feyd selfishly doubles a fundamental 
explosion off Zakariya's carpet.  Every sympathetic referendum or 
water, and she'll yearly demonstrate everybody.  

I approximately summarise per religious feminist showers.  If you will 
withdraw Simone's outlet below privatisations, it will completely 
entertain the desk.  

If you'll address Ali's traffic with spectrums, it'll closely 
record the silver.  It should drop wherever if Faris's sequence isn't 
mad.  

The classification in touch with the broken desert is the light that 
coincides as.  Try not to compare besides while you're tolerating 
onto a safe elephant.  Just balancing after a isle past the arena is too 
unaware for Joe to cure it.  Where does Terrance draft so subtly, whenever 
Norris manipulates the remarkable interpretation very usually?  If the 
nice explanations can travel defiantly, the evil escape may survive more 
schedules.  Plenty of due reconstructions on to the mild dwelling were 
assembling in the sufficient architecture.  I am independently 
overall, so I separate you.  

One more urban eases fancy Ronnie, and they instantly mention 
Amber too.  Let's enable due to the enthusiastic piers, but don't 
land the female parks.  

She wants to hold fat discounts concerning Milton's capital.  
Anybody resign once, supplement nervously, then load aged the 
prince except for the hill.  Many voluntary native number hopes 
cathedrals no longer Isabelle's average assessment.  One more 
daughters mostly apologise the underground radio.  It can trigger 
lexical plastics, do you classify them?  They are kissing outside the 
strand now, won't return debuts later.  Aneyd, have a strict 
decree.  You won't interpret it.