> > As to MSP430 relevance, our VFX Forth cross
compiler for MSP430
> > is now available.
>
> Nice to see that you've finally made it available. :-) Are you
> debugging over JTAG now?
Yes, using the TI DLLs and the FET. These will be replaced in
the next major release by our USB JTAG Widget. But that has to
wait until we've finished the ARM JTAG stuff.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@step...
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 23 80 631441, fax: +44 23 80 339691
web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads
Good Compiler for the MSP430
Started by ●February 13, 2004
Reply by ●March 5, 20042004-03-05
Reply by ●March 5, 20042004-03-05
Hi Stephen,
> > > As to MSP430 relevance, our VFX Forth cross compiler for
> MSP430 is
> > > now available.
> >
> > Nice to see that you've finally made it available. :-) Are you
> > debugging over JTAG now?
> Yes, using the TI DLLs and the FET. These will be replaced in
> the next major release by our USB JTAG Widget. But that has to
> wait until we've finished the ARM JTAG stuff.
MSP430 JTAG isn't quite as simple as ARM JTAG when programming the
flash. And you'll need to talk to TI under NDA to get any information
about how debugging works on the MSP. It ain't easy. But don't let
that put you off... :-)
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors
> > > As to MSP430 relevance, our VFX Forth cross compiler for
> MSP430 is
> > > now available.
> >
> > Nice to see that you've finally made it available. :-) Are you
> > debugging over JTAG now?
> Yes, using the TI DLLs and the FET. These will be replaced in
> the next major release by our USB JTAG Widget. But that has to
> wait until we've finished the ARM JTAG stuff.
MSP430 JTAG isn't quite as simple as ARM JTAG when programming the
flash. And you'll need to talk to TI under NDA to get any information
about how debugging works on the MSP. It ain't easy. But don't let
that put you off... :-)
Regards,
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR processors
Reply by ●March 5, 20042004-03-05
Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>We have all had bad experiences at some stage but I would rather
>
> talk things
>
>>up than down.
>
>
> That's great if you're in marketing, but not disclosing known bugs
> and their workarounds is very much a disservice to everyone who buys
> your product because they end up discovering the same bug that
> someone else already knew about. Far too many companies these days
> seem to believe that publishing a bug list for their tools somehow
> makes them look inferior to a company that doesn't, and _that_ is
> particularly insulting to the intelligence of the would-be customers.
>
Good points, and one of the reasons I like forums like these. It clears
the air of all the marketing hype.
> P.S. -- Another pet peeve of mine is the now near-ubiquitous use of
> euphemisms when discussing product bugs. I.e., the use of the
> word 'issue' rather than 'bug' or 'defect,' etc., and the use of the
Agreed there. A bug is a bug and ought to get squashed :) An 'issue' is
something for the PC head-shrinkers to debate.
> word 'may' rather than 'will' (as in, 'the program may not work if
> you do thus and so,' when, in reality, it's 100% guaranteed not to
> work in such a case).
You must not run Microsoft Windows(TM)! I can't count the number of
times I have done X,Y,Z with the result being A,B,C depending on the
state of its internal result randomizer <G>. It appears to me that they
have carefully calculated the minimum number of times it needs to return
the correct results in order to keep you from giving up completely.
(ok,ok, that's totally OT and bashed MS but its a Friday and I'm looking
forward to a weekend up setting up a new colocated Linux box -- a world
where 2+2 always == 4, as long as you have permission)
Brian
--
-----------------
Brian C. Lane (W7BCL) Programmer
www.shinemicro.com RF, DSP & Microcontroller Design
>>We have all had bad experiences at some stage but I would rather
>
> talk things
>
>>up than down.
>
>
> That's great if you're in marketing, but not disclosing known bugs
> and their workarounds is very much a disservice to everyone who buys
> your product because they end up discovering the same bug that
> someone else already knew about. Far too many companies these days
> seem to believe that publishing a bug list for their tools somehow
> makes them look inferior to a company that doesn't, and _that_ is
> particularly insulting to the intelligence of the would-be customers.
>
Good points, and one of the reasons I like forums like these. It clears
the air of all the marketing hype.
> P.S. -- Another pet peeve of mine is the now near-ubiquitous use of
> euphemisms when discussing product bugs. I.e., the use of the
> word 'issue' rather than 'bug' or 'defect,' etc., and the use of the
Agreed there. A bug is a bug and ought to get squashed :) An 'issue' is
something for the PC head-shrinkers to debate.
> word 'may' rather than 'will' (as in, 'the program may not work if
> you do thus and so,' when, in reality, it's 100% guaranteed not to
> work in such a case).
You must not run Microsoft Windows(TM)! I can't count the number of
times I have done X,Y,Z with the result being A,B,C depending on the
state of its internal result randomizer <G>. It appears to me that they
have carefully calculated the minimum number of times it needs to return
the correct results in order to keep you from giving up completely.
(ok,ok, that's totally OT and bashed MS but its a Friday and I'm looking
forward to a weekend up setting up a new colocated Linux box -- a world
where 2+2 always == 4, as long as you have permission)
Brian
--
-----------------
Brian C. Lane (W7BCL) Programmer
www.shinemicro.com RF, DSP & Microcontroller Design
Reply by ●March 5, 20042004-03-05
Hi,
it seems you didn't try using the IAR debugger while using the UART
(which does not work even at 2 other colleagues, 4 different PCs and even at 300
Baud) or to use some standard conforming C code with the IAR compiler.
One typical example: Today i had to change
for(int i=0; i<1234, i++);
because the IAR compiler does not accept this C99 code.
Last month the main problem was that the IAR compilers don't know the qualifier restrict although the standard says that even a freestanding conforming implementation has to know the qualifiers const, volatile AND restrict.
Because the ANSI/ISO-C standard allows to ignore the qualifier restrict,
it's strange that the IAR compilers (even the 2.x versions) don't
know restrict. And it seems that the IAR guys don't know the standard
because the IAR compiler do set __STDC__ to 1 which is definitely wrong!
Another point is that the IAR compilers are poor, they don't have e. g.
stdbool.h.
Rolf
it seems you didn't try using the IAR debugger while using the UART
(which does not work even at 2 other colleagues, 4 different PCs and even at 300
Baud) or to use some standard conforming C code with the IAR compiler.
One typical example: Today i had to change
for(int i=0; i<1234, i++);
because the IAR compiler does not accept this C99 code.
Last month the main problem was that the IAR compilers don't know the qualifier restrict although the standard says that even a freestanding conforming implementation has to know the qualifiers const, volatile AND restrict.
Because the ANSI/ISO-C standard allows to ignore the qualifier restrict,
it's strange that the IAR compilers (even the 2.x versions) don't
know restrict. And it seems that the IAR guys don't know the standard
because the IAR compiler do set __STDC__ to 1 which is definitely wrong!
Another point is that the IAR compilers are poor, they don't have e. g.
stdbool.h.
Rolf
Reply by ●March 5, 20042004-03-05
Hi Joel,
I am a developer and not in marketing. I don't see a positive attitude as
incompatible with being a developer.
Ray
I am a developer and not in marketing. I don't see a positive attitude as
incompatible with being a developer.
Ray
Reply by ●March 6, 20042004-03-06
Reply by ●March 6, 20042004-03-06
Rolf,
I don't believe IAR claim C99 conformance. It's OK not to have
stdbool.h and also to set __STDC__ to 1 for a C90 compiler. Again,
restrict is a C99ism, and it is not required for C90-conforming
compilers, not even to recognise it.
-- Paul.
I don't believe IAR claim C99 conformance. It's OK not to have
stdbool.h and also to set __STDC__ to 1 for a C90 compiler. Again,
restrict is a C99ism, and it is not required for C90-conforming
compilers, not even to recognise it.
-- Paul.
Reply by ●March 6, 20042004-03-06
Al,
Actually, there is. It is called the Freestanding Subset and is
enshrined in the C90 standard.
-- Paul.
Actually, there is. It is called the Freestanding Subset and is
enshrined in the C90 standard.
-- Paul.
Reply by ●March 6, 20042004-03-06
Curious! It might be interesting to have a look at, since it must
encompass the entire gamut of microcontrollers from 4 bits to 64 bits to
have any meaning. Perhaps vendors should quote their conformance to this
then, as any other variant/version of the ANSI C standard is irrelevant.
Al
encompass the entire gamut of microcontrollers from 4 bits to 64 bits to
have any meaning. Perhaps vendors should quote their conformance to this
then, as any other variant/version of the ANSI C standard is irrelevant.
Al
Reply by ●March 6, 20042004-03-06
Hi,
> Actually, there is. It is called the Freestanding Subset and is
> enshrined in the C90 standard.
The C90 is ancient, i mean C99 or newer because many compilers like the gcc have features of the next ANSI/ISO-C standards.
The differences between freestanding and hosted implementations are described in chapter 4.:
www.ucalgary.ca/~bgwong/n869.pdf
But most of the standard is independent of the implementation. The standard says e. g. that the implementation initialises every object with static storage duration to (positive or unsigned) zero/NULL recursively and at that point there is no difference between hosted or freestanding implementations.
Therefore i don't initialise static objects with zero/NULL and i'm raging if the implementation does not what the standard says or produces a good warning or error which explains that at that point is a non-standard behaviour.
I only want to produce good code, i don't want to debug compilers, preprocessors, linkers, assemblers or ICs and the standard and specifications say that i can do this and i have paid for it.
Rolf
> Actually, there is. It is called the Freestanding Subset and is
> enshrined in the C90 standard.
The C90 is ancient, i mean C99 or newer because many compilers like the gcc have features of the next ANSI/ISO-C standards.
The differences between freestanding and hosted implementations are described in chapter 4.:
www.ucalgary.ca/~bgwong/n869.pdf
But most of the standard is independent of the implementation. The standard says e. g. that the implementation initialises every object with static storage duration to (positive or unsigned) zero/NULL recursively and at that point there is no difference between hosted or freestanding implementations.
Therefore i don't initialise static objects with zero/NULL and i'm raging if the implementation does not what the standard says or produces a good warning or error which explains that at that point is a non-standard behaviour.
I only want to produce good code, i don't want to debug compilers, preprocessors, linkers, assemblers or ICs and the standard and specifications say that i can do this and i have paid for it.
Rolf
