>1. The project builder seemingly compiles the source files making up a >project in a random order. It never seems to compile them in the same >order twice. This is extremely annoying when fixing syntax errors >followed by a rebuild to check the fixes.If this is like standard Eclipse, then in the Problems table (where the errors and warnings are) you can sort the columns to make the navigation much simpler. Sort by location to get all the errors in line number order within file order.>3. Several of the applications I tried running under the simulator >didn't stop at the main() function. Rather, the debugger just started >free running. Not even a breakpoint at the first executable line of >main() would tame it. I tried building the exact same code under MPLAB >and CrossStudio and did not experience this simulator runaway. I'm >very concerned that if the debugger is this flaky running a simulator, >how will it perform with real hardware?Microchip and Rowley do not provide AVR32 tool chains as far as I know, so I don't think this is a good example. Its much more likely to be a linker configuration problem and MPLAB and CrossStudio have very different linkers. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop 17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
32-Bit Microcontroller for New Project
Started by ●September 8, 2008
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
On Sep 9, 1:13=A0pm, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote:> >1. The project builder seemingly compiles the source files making up a > >project in a random order. It never seems to compile them in the same > >order twice. This is extremely annoying when fixing syntax errors > >followed by a rebuild to check the fixes. > > If this is like standard Eclipse, then in the Problems table (where the > errors and warnings are) you can sort the columns to make the navigation > much simpler. =A0Sort by location to get all the errors in line number or=der> within file order.That would work, but when more than one file has compilation errors, the build process will stop after the first error. This will be a different file every time. Only one file appears in the Problems table. For example, let's say my project has three files, file1.c, file2.c, and file3.c, all with syntax errors. If I do a build, the build may start with file2.c and flag an error. If I fix the error and do a rebuild, it may start building with file1.c and stop on the error in that file. It may be several more build attempts before I see if the fixes I made to file2.c are okay. It's this jumping around that I find annoying.> Microchip and Rowley do not provide AVR32 tool chains as far as I know, s=o I> don't think this is a good example. =A0Its much more likely to be a linke=r> configuration problem and MPLAB and CrossStudio have very different linke=rs. I agree, it's probably a linker configuration problem, but I'm using the default linker configuration and this should be set up with sane defaults. The test code I used was straightforward with no requirements for special linker configuration. I didn't have any issues with MPLAB or CrossStudio.
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
>That would work, but when more than one file has compilation errors, >the build process will stop after the first error. This will be a >different file every time. Only one file appears in the Problems >table.I actually steer clear of the managed make all together, and use standard makefiles. -- Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop 17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month. + http://www.SafeRTOS.com Certified by T�V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
On Sep 9, 2:16=A0pm, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote:> >That would work, but when more than one file has compilation errors, > >the build process will stop after the first error. This will be a > >different file every time. Only one file appears in the Problems > >table. > > I actually steer clear of the managed make all together, and use standard > makefiles.If I decide to use the AVR32 in my project, I'll go ahead and write proper makefiles, but I didn't want to bother just for an evaluation. I can't see why the project builder doesn't use a more sensible scheme, such as building files in alphabetical order by filename
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
sodaant@gmail.com wrote:> "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote: > >>> 1. The project builder seemingly compiles the source files >>> making up a project in a random order. It never seems to compile >>> them in the same order twice. This is extremely annoying when >>> fixing syntax errors followed by a rebuild to check the fixes. >> >> If this is like standard Eclipse, then in the Problems table >> (where the errors and warnings are) you can sort the columns to >> make the navigation much simpler. Sort by location to get all >> the errors in line number order within file order. > > That would work, but when more than one file has compilation > errors, the build process will stop after the first error. This > will be a different file every time. Only one file appears in the > Problems table. > > For example, let's say my project has three files, file1.c, > file2.c, and file3.c, all with syntax errors. If I do a build, > the build may start with file2.c and flag an error. If I fix the > error and do a rebuild, it may start building with file1.c and > stop on the error in that file. It may be several more build > attempts before I see if the fixes I made to file2.c are okay. > It's this jumping around that I find annoying.Why don't you just ignore the IDE and write a makefile, using GNU make? Then you are just using the command line components, and all should be clear. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●September 9, 20082008-09-09
sodaant@gmail.com wrote:> >> Most importantly: Linux support for when you want to switch to >> a host system bred for software development instead of one >> designed for showing power-point presentations. ;) > > Why do you Linux fanbois always turn everything into dig against > Windows?Because, unlike Winders, it is reliable and consistent. Much better suited for programmers. Winders is designed for the newbie idiots and/or teen-age game players. Most Winders users don't even know how to get to a command line window. Please don't remove attribution lines. Those are the initial "Joe wrote:" lines, which identify the authors of various levels of quotes. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section.
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Sep 9, 5:02=A0pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:> soda...@gmail.com wrote: > > Why do you Linux fanbois always turn everything into dig against > > Windows? > > Because, unlike Winders, it is reliable and consistent. =A0Much > better suited for programmers. =A0Winders is designed for the newbie > idiots and/or teen-age game players. =A0Most Winders users don't even > know how to get to a command line window.I'm not a rabid fan of either Windows or Linux. I use both and like them equally as they each have their strong points. I do object, however, to what seems like petty criticism of Windows by Linux fans. You know the type--they use cute names such as "Winders" and "Windoze" for the object of their scorn. Much like kids calling each other names on the playground. Nah nah nah nah nah nah my OS is better than yours! As a longtime Windows user, I find it to be reliable and consistent. I haven't seen a BSOD in over ten years, and that was due to a poorly written 3Com NIC driver. As for consistency, I'd give the nod to Windows. Linus comes in so many flavors and with so many interfaces (KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Icebox, etc.) that one can hardly call it consistent. The same can be said about Windows kernel internals, which seem more stable than, e.g., Linux with its scheduler-of-the-month, etc.
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com> writes:> >> AVR32 and AVR32 Studio > > AVR32 Studio is Eclipse, which is full-featured but for my money very > > slow. > > Saw some studies on this. > Eclipse uses a lot of RAM. Minimum 1 GB, possibly 2 GB is needed. > If you have too little RAM you would obviously be swapping = SLOW.What kind of grotesque implementation is this? Are they loading everything on the hard drive into memory just to have some ballast?
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT), sodaant@gmail.com wrote:>> Most importantly: Linux support for when you want to switch to >> a host system bred for software development instead of one >> designed for showing power-point presentations. �;) > >Why do you Linux fanbois always turn everything into dig against >Windows? > >If it all came down to a steel cage match pitting Dave Cutler against >Torvalds, my money would be on Cutler.I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware. The Microsoft reputation was spoiled by the unreliable MS-DOS/16 bit Windows operating systems and the Windows 9x versions were not much better. For embedded projects, studying the internals of the RSX-11 operating system family might give some useful hints, instead of copying everything from unix/linux. Paul
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On 2008-09-10, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote:> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT), sodaant@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Most importantly: Linux support for when you want to switch to >>> a host system bred for software development instead of one >>> designed for showing power-point presentations. �;) >> >>Why do you Linux fanbois always turn everything into dig against >>Windows? >> >>If it all came down to a steel cage match pitting Dave Cutler against >>Torvalds, my money would be on Cutler. > > I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and > reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware.Even Win2K wasn't too bad. XP was definitely a step down, and Vista is a leap off a cliff.> The Microsoft reputation was spoiled by the unreliable > MS-DOS/16 bit Windows operating systems and the Windows 9x > versions were not much better.Exactly. None of the 16-bit stuff past about DOS 3.x was worth the cost of the floppies it came on.> For embedded projects, studying the internals of the RSX-11 > operating system family might give some useful hints, instead > of copying everything from unix/linux.FWIW, the reference to Linux above was in reference to a firmware development host system, not for an embedded target system. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Quick, sing me the at BUDAPEST NATIONAL ANTHEM!! visi.com