I am planning to experiment in porting a couple of my Keil projects
over to GCC and see how that compiler performs as far as code size
goes. Anybody done that before? What is involved in the conversion?
I know I'll have to write makefiles. That's not a problem. Any
problems in using compiled GCC code in uVision for debugging? Any
other known problems/issues that may come up?
Sutton
porting projects from Keil to GCC
Started by ●November 29, 2007
Reply by ●November 30, 20072007-11-30
--- In l..., "Sutton Mehaffey" wrote:
>
> I am planning to experiment in porting a couple of my Keil projects
> over to GCC and see how that compiler performs as far as code size
> goes. Anybody done that before? What is involved in the conversion?
> I know I'll have to write makefiles. That's not a problem. Any
> problems in using compiled GCC code in uVision for debugging? Any
> other known problems/issues that may come up?
>
> Sutton
>
One thing that can affect size is the THUMB mode.
I do not use it since it returned one adress to early
for an interrupt.(Does not happen always)
Dont know if this bug has been fixed in never GNU versions.
Think only way to go around it might be own interrupt entry/exit
code. Also you need to take a look at handling of nested interrupt.
It may be handled differently.
/Martin
>
> I am planning to experiment in porting a couple of my Keil projects
> over to GCC and see how that compiler performs as far as code size
> goes. Anybody done that before? What is involved in the conversion?
> I know I'll have to write makefiles. That's not a problem. Any
> problems in using compiled GCC code in uVision for debugging? Any
> other known problems/issues that may come up?
>
> Sutton
>
One thing that can affect size is the THUMB mode.
I do not use it since it returned one adress to early
for an interrupt.(Does not happen always)
Dont know if this bug has been fixed in never GNU versions.
Think only way to go around it might be own interrupt entry/exit
code. Also you need to take a look at handling of nested interrupt.
It may be handled differently.
/Martin
Reply by ●November 30, 20072007-11-30
Hi Sutton
I have ported projects from IAR Kickstart tools to GCC. The main
problems are the porting of the fanny macros that all these tools
providers encourage you to use to make sure it hard for someone to
port such projects to other tools. Also there are issues with
standard libraries.
The main problems were the porting of the startup file and the
interrupt routines. The make file and linker scripts are not easy to
understand. But there are loads of examples posted in this group and
on the internet.
Regards
Jean-Jacques
--- In l..., "Sutton Mehaffey" wrote:
>
> I am planning to experiment in porting a couple of my Keil projects
> over to GCC and see how that compiler performs as far as code size
> goes. Anybody done that before? What is involved in the
conversion?
> I know I'll have to write makefiles. That's not a problem. Any
> problems in using compiled GCC code in uVision for debugging? Any
> other known problems/issues that may come up?
>
> Sutton
>
I have ported projects from IAR Kickstart tools to GCC. The main
problems are the porting of the fanny macros that all these tools
providers encourage you to use to make sure it hard for someone to
port such projects to other tools. Also there are issues with
standard libraries.
The main problems were the porting of the startup file and the
interrupt routines. The make file and linker scripts are not easy to
understand. But there are loads of examples posted in this group and
on the internet.
Regards
Jean-Jacques
--- In l..., "Sutton Mehaffey" wrote:
>
> I am planning to experiment in porting a couple of my Keil projects
> over to GCC and see how that compiler performs as far as code size
> goes. Anybody done that before? What is involved in the
conversion?
> I know I'll have to write makefiles. That's not a problem. Any
> problems in using compiled GCC code in uVision for debugging? Any
> other known problems/issues that may come up?
>
> Sutton
>
