I'm new to the MSP430 and related tools, just started looking at the
IAR C compiler...
It appears that this complier does not support in-line assembly
(no "_ASM" directive), so asm code cannot be in the C-source file.
This is unfortunate...
Of course the ability to call an assembly language routine from C
should provide the needed funtionality, I'll just miss the ability to
do it inline.
Bruce.
IAR C compiler in-line assemble support
Started by ●June 27, 2003
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
The old IAR toolset (V1.26) does not have an inline assembler. The new
tools (V2.20A) has an inline assembler - at least according to the manual
I have.
Ian
http://www.satamatics.com
tools (V2.20A) has an inline assembler - at least according to the manual
I have.
Ian
http://www.satamatics.com
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
With AQ430, you can inline assembly code in a C program by just
introducing it with:
/$
and closing with:
$/
Of course, it's much less expensive than the IAR tools....
Michel
introducing it with:
/$
and closing with:
$/
Of course, it's much less expensive than the IAR tools....
Michel
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Michel, surely, as a point of etiquette, at least, you should point out
that you have a direct interest in Quadravox. It's a "good thing" that
you, Paul, Richard and Andrew hang out here and offer support for your
products, but newcomers like Bruce may be unaware of your vested
interests and assume that this is an unsolicited post.
Al
that you have a direct interest in Quadravox. It's a "good thing" that
you, Paul, Richard and Andrew hang out here and offer support for your
products, but newcomers like Bruce may be unaware of your vested
interests and assume that this is an unsolicited post.
Al
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
My perspective: I'm a 2 year user of IAR. I bought it when there
was nothing else available so I was hooked by default. I originally
thought the lack of inline assembly was a real problem. Now I don;t
think that at all. After 4 MSP430 projects, I have yet to see an
instance where I *had* to have it. In the rare case where C code
can't generate the right code (for example, "MOV SR,R12"), a simple
ASM subroutine will work.
Now that IAR has some worthy competition, I'm just waiting for
breathing room to switch over to a different toolset. IAR is way too
much $$$.
JJS
was nothing else available so I was hooked by default. I originally
thought the lack of inline assembly was a real problem. Now I don;t
think that at all. After 4 MSP430 projects, I have yet to see an
instance where I *had* to have it. In the rare case where C code
can't generate the right code (for example, "MOV SR,R12"), a simple
ASM subroutine will work.
Now that IAR has some worthy competition, I'm just waiting for
breathing room to switch over to a different toolset. IAR is way too
much $$$.
JJS
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
I've been quite pleased with the results of GCC. I am at a total loss as
to
why ANYONE would lay out the investment for IAR tools. I've done 3 major
projects in it, and several minor ones.
--John
why ANYONE would lay out the investment for IAR tools. I've done 3 major
projects in it, and several minor ones.
--John
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Sorry about that. I thought it was obvious by now, but you're right,
I will add my affiliation at the bottom of my messages. Thanks for
the reminder.
Michel
www.quadravox.com/aq430.htm home of AQ430 tools for MSP430.
I will add my affiliation at the bottom of my messages. Thanks for
the reminder.
Michel
www.quadravox.com/aq430.htm home of AQ430 tools for MSP430.
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Hi John,
> I've been quite pleased with the results of GCC. I am
> at a total loss as to
> why ANYONE would lay out the investment for IAR tools. I've
> done 3 major
> projects in it, and several minor ones.
I might as well add a vendor's perspective here. We not-so-recently
lost a sale of 10 units to IAR. Yes, that's right, ten units to IAR...
The reason wasn't technical (general agreement that the IDE was "better"
than IAR, that code generation was "on a par" with IAR from the
customer). The reason was one of "perceived support", pure and simple,
and product maturity.
A big company will purchase a high-price tool in the expectation that,
because of that purchase, they will get good support. This is not
always the case--I pay Microsoft for lots of tools, but I don't expect
any special treatment when I report a bug. Do I click the "Tell
Microsoft About This Problem" button each time Windows XP recovers from
a crash? Nope, I know it'll go nowhere...
I sometimes wonder whether we should offer a pay-per-incident scheme
charging customers $200 a shot for this premium service. Of course,
it's no different from the run-of-the-mill service, but it might just
reassure larger companies that they have some form of support.
Of course, there are a number of you in this forum that have stumbled
over bugs in the latest IAR compiler, yes? When you report them to IAR,
what is the response for your $400+ per year tax? Do you get an
immediate fix? I must admit that I am more than a little interested in
the answers to these questions. And yes, of course our software has
bugs--what software, apart from trivial applications, doesn't?
-- Paul.
> I've been quite pleased with the results of GCC. I am
> at a total loss as to
> why ANYONE would lay out the investment for IAR tools. I've
> done 3 major
> projects in it, and several minor ones.
I might as well add a vendor's perspective here. We not-so-recently
lost a sale of 10 units to IAR. Yes, that's right, ten units to IAR...
The reason wasn't technical (general agreement that the IDE was "better"
than IAR, that code generation was "on a par" with IAR from the
customer). The reason was one of "perceived support", pure and simple,
and product maturity.
A big company will purchase a high-price tool in the expectation that,
because of that purchase, they will get good support. This is not
always the case--I pay Microsoft for lots of tools, but I don't expect
any special treatment when I report a bug. Do I click the "Tell
Microsoft About This Problem" button each time Windows XP recovers from
a crash? Nope, I know it'll go nowhere...
I sometimes wonder whether we should offer a pay-per-incident scheme
charging customers $200 a shot for this premium service. Of course,
it's no different from the run-of-the-mill service, but it might just
reassure larger companies that they have some form of support.
Of course, there are a number of you in this forum that have stumbled
over bugs in the latest IAR compiler, yes? When you report them to IAR,
what is the response for your $400+ per year tax? Do you get an
immediate fix? I must admit that I am more than a little interested in
the answers to these questions. And yes, of course our software has
bugs--what software, apart from trivial applications, doesn't?
-- Paul.
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Michel,
> Sorry about that. I thought it was obvious by now, but you're right,
> I will add my affiliation at the bottom of my messages. Thanks for
> the reminder.
>
> Michel
>
> www.quadravox.com/aq430.htm home of AQ430 tools for MSP430.
I leave mine off; we don't really advertise in our signatures here.
After you've seen the same ad sig five or six times, it gets tiresome.
Bruce, any guidance on sigs here? Perhaps a once-a-month FAQ and
netiquette posting would do well for the group?
-- Paul.
> Sorry about that. I thought it was obvious by now, but you're right,
> I will add my affiliation at the bottom of my messages. Thanks for
> the reminder.
>
> Michel
>
> www.quadravox.com/aq430.htm home of AQ430 tools for MSP430.
I leave mine off; we don't really advertise in our signatures here.
After you've seen the same ad sig five or six times, it gets tiresome.
Bruce, any guidance on sigs here? Perhaps a once-a-month FAQ and
netiquette posting would do well for the group?
-- Paul.
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
