If I was giving advice to someone just jumping into this stuff, I'd
say long-term, the lowest-risk, most flexible option is GCC, for all
the reasons already mentioned. Short-term, you want to lower the
learning curve, and have someone reliable to ask questions with the
kind of responsiveness that comes from a financial relationship. I
think if you mix those two, you're looking at Rowley. Also, I see
people from Rowley chiming in here often, so they actually have
on-going experience with the LPC. If I was going commercial today,
I'd say that speaks worlds. Now, caveat, I'm a GNUARM/BSD user, so
I
can't vouch for them thru experience, and certainly, there could be
IAR/Keil techs on this forum, but they're awfully quiet about their
employer if they are...
Steve
Anyone use Imagecraft ICC or Rowley CrossWorks?
Started by ●August 20, 2008
Reply by ●August 21, 20082008-08-21
Reply by ●August 21, 20082008-08-21
--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
>
> That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> PSoC compiler is "crap."
Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
is anything like..."
All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
IAR seems to be good in editor and compiler so far.
Thanks,
boB
>
> At 05:26 PM 8/20/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> >If ImageCrap for ARM is anything like ImageCrap for Cypress PSoC,
> >stayFAR away from that one.
> >
> >I ~think~ that IAR and Keil are the top guys, but the GNU based ones
> >(Crossworks) is a close second (2nd only because of compiled code
size).
> >
> >This is NOT taking price into account of course. That's a different
> >story.
> > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
>
> That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> PSoC compiler is "crap."
Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
is anything like..."
All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
IAR seems to be good in editor and compiler so far.
Thanks,
boB
>
> At 05:26 PM 8/20/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> >If ImageCrap for ARM is anything like ImageCrap for Cypress PSoC,
> >stayFAR away from that one.
> >
> >I ~think~ that IAR and Keil are the top guys, but the GNU based ones
> >(Crossworks) is a close second (2nd only because of compiled code
size).
> >
> >This is NOT taking price into account of course. That's a different
> >story.
> > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
"I'm evaluating cheap compilers..."
Certainly understandable for hobbyist or students. Or is it? IAR allows 32KB of code in the free version. Keil, 16KB. Rowley's GCC flavor: low cost if you sign a not-for-profit promise. Sufficient for most such projects?
For professional endeavors, if your company pays you US$75-150K and expects high productivity and won't pay for a $3500 tool, then maybe you need a different employer!
Certainly understandable for hobbyist or students. Or is it? IAR allows 32KB of code in the free version. Keil, 16KB. Rowley's GCC flavor: low cost if you sign a not-for-profit promise. Sufficient for most such projects?
For professional endeavors, if your company pays you US$75-150K and expects high productivity and won't pay for a $3500 tool, then maybe you need a different employer!
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
--- In l..., "Thomas (Tom) M. Alldread"
wrote:
>
> Greetings All:
>
> I have used Rowley's CrossWorks and Keil with ARM processors plus a
> variety of IDEs for other platforms. I think Rowley's CrossWorks is the
> best IDE I have ever used and I have found their support has been just
> excellent! The current application I am working on has a compiled code
> size of about 100KB. It includes an FIQ ISR written in ASM which
> CrossWorks integrated nicely into the rest of the code written in C.
>
Yup - the simple fact is that, as primarily a Windows developer, I
could not possibly have got my ARM project working without an IDE and
the support of both Rowley, (and this group:). The thought of
fiddling with makefile scripts and struggling for weeks trying to get
any sort of code running is just too much when you have limited
development time. The large number of 'Can't get my LED to flash
after weeks of trying' posts here is sufficient evidence that I would
have no chance without a 'ready-built' development system.
The Crossworks IDE/GNU has been fine and, mod. one problem with
thumb-mode startup/C++ constructors that was quickly sorted by Rowley,
I have only had my own bugs to deal with. The package came with an
OS, (ctl) that, while perhaps not being as comprehensive as others
available, works fine. The ctl has queues, event flags etc. that I
have not used, but I only really need threads and semaphores & these
work fine. With help from this group, I also got an ASM FIQ handler
to work, together with an IRQ signal that fires a semaphore and so
makes the SD thread ready when a sector has been read/written.
In fact, every interrupt I have turned on, (2 UARTs, 2 CAN, SPI/SD,
capture, timer) has resulted in the handler getting called just about
as soon as I have got all the syntax errors out and achieved a valid
build. I can guarantee that I would have had severe problems with a
DIY approach.
If you are not hugely experienced with embedded work, and don't want
to fight with tool configuration, make scripts and startup code,
(shudder!), Crossworks/GNU is very good indeed.
Rgds,
Martin
wrote:
>
> Greetings All:
>
> I have used Rowley's CrossWorks and Keil with ARM processors plus a
> variety of IDEs for other platforms. I think Rowley's CrossWorks is the
> best IDE I have ever used and I have found their support has been just
> excellent! The current application I am working on has a compiled code
> size of about 100KB. It includes an FIQ ISR written in ASM which
> CrossWorks integrated nicely into the rest of the code written in C.
>
Yup - the simple fact is that, as primarily a Windows developer, I
could not possibly have got my ARM project working without an IDE and
the support of both Rowley, (and this group:). The thought of
fiddling with makefile scripts and struggling for weeks trying to get
any sort of code running is just too much when you have limited
development time. The large number of 'Can't get my LED to flash
after weeks of trying' posts here is sufficient evidence that I would
have no chance without a 'ready-built' development system.
The Crossworks IDE/GNU has been fine and, mod. one problem with
thumb-mode startup/C++ constructors that was quickly sorted by Rowley,
I have only had my own bugs to deal with. The package came with an
OS, (ctl) that, while perhaps not being as comprehensive as others
available, works fine. The ctl has queues, event flags etc. that I
have not used, but I only really need threads and semaphores & these
work fine. With help from this group, I also got an ASM FIQ handler
to work, together with an IRQ signal that fires a semaphore and so
makes the SD thread ready when a sector has been read/written.
In fact, every interrupt I have turned on, (2 UARTs, 2 CAN, SPI/SD,
capture, timer) has resulted in the handler getting called just about
as soon as I have got all the syntax errors out and achieved a valid
build. I can guarantee that I would have had severe problems with a
DIY approach.
If you are not hugely experienced with embedded work, and don't want
to fight with tool configuration, make scripts and startup code,
(shudder!), Crossworks/GNU is very good indeed.
Rgds,
Martin
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
s...@san.rr.com wrote:
> "I'm evaluating cheap compilers..."
>
> Certainly understandable for hobbyist or students. Or is it? IAR
> allows 32KB of code in the free version. Keil, 16KB. Rowley's GCC
> flavor: low cost if you sign a not-for-profit promise. Sufficient
> for most such projects?
>
> For professional endeavors, if your company pays you US$75-150K and
> expects high productivity and won't pay for a $3500 tool, then maybe
> you need a different employer!
This may well be true if you're in a big company, but if you are running
a small company as your own boss, it's a lot of cash to shell out if
there is a cheaper option which fits your needs.
The question you need to ask is, will paying extra $$ for the tool save
you that much time? (Or, will buying a cheaper tool cost you a load of
time to get it working properly?)
--
Tim Mitchell
> "I'm evaluating cheap compilers..."
>
> Certainly understandable for hobbyist or students. Or is it? IAR
> allows 32KB of code in the free version. Keil, 16KB. Rowley's GCC
> flavor: low cost if you sign a not-for-profit promise. Sufficient
> for most such projects?
>
> For professional endeavors, if your company pays you US$75-150K and
> expects high productivity and won't pay for a $3500 tool, then maybe
> you need a different employer!
This may well be true if you're in a big company, but if you are running
a small company as your own boss, it's a lot of cash to shell out if
there is a cheaper option which fits your needs.
The question you need to ask is, will paying extra $$ for the tool save
you that much time? (Or, will buying a cheaper tool cost you a load of
time to get it working properly?)
--
Tim Mitchell
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
> If you are not hugely experienced with embedded work,
and don't want
> to fight with tool configuration, make scripts and startup code,
> (shudder!), Crossworks/GNU is very good indeed.
>
WinARM (not used Yogarto) works exactly like this. I had no experience with
ARM, but my board was UP and running in one hour from download of WinARM.
Plus I get a chance to play with makefile, linker scripts, startup code as
bonus.
Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd.
10/1 IT Park, Parsodi,
Nagpur -440022 India.
Web site - http://betacomp.com
Meet us at Booth I102, Taipei PLAS 2008, Sept 18-22 , Taiwan.
> to fight with tool configuration, make scripts and startup code,
> (shudder!), Crossworks/GNU is very good indeed.
>
WinARM (not used Yogarto) works exactly like this. I had no experience with
ARM, but my board was UP and running in one hour from download of WinARM.
Plus I get a chance to play with makefile, linker scripts, startup code as
bonus.
Warm Regards,
Mukund Deshmukh,
Beta Computronics Pvt Ltd.
10/1 IT Park, Parsodi,
Nagpur -440022 India.
Web site - http://betacomp.com
Meet us at Booth I102, Taipei PLAS 2008, Sept 18-22 , Taiwan.
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
At 02:25 PM 8/21/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
>--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> >
> > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > PSoC compiler is "crap."
>Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
>I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
>is anything like..."
>
>All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
>and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
>compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
>seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> >
> > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > PSoC compiler is "crap."
>Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
>I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
>is anything like..."
>
>All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
>and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
>compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
>seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
please use richard at imagecraft.com)
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
when someone posts an absurd comment as is the "it's crap" posting, I
think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
>
> At 02:25 PM 8/21/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> >--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > > PSoC compiler is "crap."
> >
> >
> >Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
> >I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
> >is anything like..."
> >
> >All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
> >and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
> >compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
> >seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
>
> We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
> compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
> PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
> everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
> say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
>
> At 02:25 PM 8/21/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> >--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > > PSoC compiler is "crap."
> >
> >
> >Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
> >I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said "IF it
> >is anything like..."
> >
> >All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
> >and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
> >compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
> >seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
>
> We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
> compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
> PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
> everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
> say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
Unless you're talking about Hyperterm. Then are no words that can be
combined to adequately describe it's crappiness.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM, stevech11 wrote:
>
>> when someone posts an absurd comment as is the "it's crap" posting, I
>> think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
>
combined to adequately describe it's crappiness.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM, stevech11 wrote:
>
>> when someone posts an absurd comment as is the "it's crap" posting, I
>> think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
>
Reply by ●August 22, 20082008-08-22
--- In l..., "stevech11" wrote:
>
> when someone posts an absurd comment as is the "it's crap" posting, I
> think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
You obviously have never had to use Cypress' PSoC developer and this
particular compiler.
boB the Dolt.
> --- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> >
> > At 02:25 PM 8/21/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> > >--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > > > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > > > PSoC compiler is "crap."
> > >
> > >
> > >Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
> > >I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said
"IF it
> > >is anything like..."
> > >
> > >All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
> > >and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
> > >compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
> > >seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
> >
> > We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
> > compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
> > PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
> > everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
> > say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
> >
> >
> > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> > please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
>
> when someone posts an absurd comment as is the "it's crap" posting, I
> think that most of us just ignore the comment as being made by a dolt.
You obviously have never had to use Cypress' PSoC developer and this
particular compiler.
boB the Dolt.
> --- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> >
> > At 02:25 PM 8/21/2008, bobtransformer wrote:
> > >--- In l..., Richard Man wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a pretty strong statement. Perhaps you should read our blog
> > > > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com and see our side of story why the
> > > > PSoC compiler is "crap."
> > >
> > >
> > >Interesting story... Yes there is always 2 sides to every story and
> > >I'm glad you pointed me to that blog. But, this is why I said
"IF it
> > >is anything like..."
> > >
> > >All I know is that I wasted a LOT of time with bugs in the compiler
> > >and Cypress's editor wasn't very good either. Hi-Tech made the next
> > >compiler for PSoC and it also has bugs, but not nearly as many it
> > >seems. Neither compiler is/was C99 compliant either.
> >
> > We probably have more combined users than any other commercial
> > compiler vendors (CCS is pretty strong, but they only target the
> > PIC). Most users are very happy but I know we can't satisfy
> > everybody. Being trashed this bad though with name calling? I can't
> > say it happened before. It stings. Sigh.
> >
> >
> > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> > please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
