AVR-Chat

This is bound to be a huge thread, ranging from "Real men program in
assembler" to "BASIC is almost like a real programming language these days"

Your mainstream choices are

Assembler (AVR Studio)
BASCOM
GCC
Codevision C
Imagecraft C

If you want to learn how the chip works then use assembler, but from the
tone of your email I don't think that's what you're after.  AVR assembler is
specific to AVR's and not transferable.

If you know C then you won't like BASCOM, which is almost like a real
language now, but is still BASIC and suffers from the "it's quick and easy
to get started but slow and hard to get finished" syndrome. 

From your email you're obviously leaning towards C because you know it, so
you'll want to transfer those skills and your question becomes: which C
compiler?

GCC - Is for Linux, free software aficionados.  It works, isn't pretty,
takes a bit of work to get all the bits up and running, has the stuff the
commercial products have, but not in a ready-to-go hold-your-hand package.  

Imagecraft.  "Industrial Strength" professional, expensive compiler.  I
can't talk much about it as it's beyond my budget so I haven't used it or
seen it used.

My personal preference is Codevision.  There is a free "evaluation" version
that is code-size limited, but good enough for all but the really big
projects.  Even if you decide to pay for it, it's still very reasonable.
Much easier to set up than GCC, has nice code generating wizards that save a
bit of manual reading the first time you use a feature. Lots of code
libraries.

ALL these C compilers meet your criteria, (except Imagecraft isn't very
cheap) 

Good luck

Q

-----Original Message-----
From: markevans_1 [mailto:markevans@iinet.net.au] 
Sent: March 14, 2004 8:14 AM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AVR-Chat] AVR Compiler: which is the best


Ok, I hope this message isnt the start of a huge thread, but I would 
like biased/unbiased opinions on what you guys recon is the best 
compiler for the AVR microcontroller.

Basically I want something that is cheap, ideally comes with a 
fuctional IDE and is quick to code with ( has built in libraries, 
language maps easily to AVR, and is as high level as possible) and 
at the same time has the abilty to do low level stuff when speed is 
required ie: inline assembly. It needs to compile fast and generate 
small code and needs to support AVRs which have no RAM.

Not too fussed about language as long as it meets all my above 
criteria, but I suppose I have some preference to C.

Hope you can help
Mark.



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks for all the replys. 

I have written a handful of programs for AVR and PIC in assembly. I 
find once you start to include LCDs (especially graphical ones) to 
the project the code gets quite large quite quickly. So my main 
reason in looking for a higher level compiler is for managability. 
As for language preference, 

I have significant experience in C/C++, java and a bit of BASIC but 
am not adverse to learning a new latest-and-greatest language. The 
main requirement is that there is a large body of freely available 
existing code for the particular compiler-language so I can drop in 
an I2C class, LCD routines etc and not waste my time writing and 
debugging such code. Also I would like to have the option to port my 
code to other micros if the need arises.

Looking back on a few hundred lines of assembly you coded a couple 
of years ago and untangling it is not much fun: even if it is well 
documented. Furthermore, I find the vast bulk of code I have written 
is related to GUI stuff. Output a string or draw a line to an LCD, 
listen for keypresses etc: which requires a lot of code that can be 
reused from project to project and has little need for highly speed 
optermised code. Whenever speed becomes an issue though, I would 
greatly prefer to code in inline assembly, if for nothing more you 
can easily count clock cycles.

I am still a student doing a Computer Science and Engineering 
Degree. After a 3 year degree of CS you know compilers generate 
assembly but are never taught or shown what it is or what it looks 
like: for that matter you are told not to code in it. As for 
engineering, they do introduce you to it, but there is still a heavy 
focus on using C for low level stuff where ever possible.

I understand the reasoning behind it but I still think programmers 
should have an understanding of what a compiler does and how it does 
it to better understand the implementations of the code they write 
in high level languages.

I will download a couple of demos of the mentioned AVR Compilers and 
see which I prefer.

Mark.




--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Cobb, Quentin" <quentin_cobb@t...> 
wrote:
> This is bound to be a huge thread, ranging from "Real men program 
in
> assembler" to "BASIC is almost like a real programming language 
these days"
> 
> Your mainstream choices are
> 
> Assembler (AVR Studio)
> BASCOM
> GCC
> Codevision C
> Imagecraft C
> 
> If you want to learn how the chip works then use assembler, but 
from the
> tone of your email I don't think that's what you're after.  AVR 
assembler is
> specific to AVR's and not transferable.
> 
> If you know C then you won't like BASCOM, which is almost like a 
real
> language now, but is still BASIC and suffers from the "it's quick 
and easy
> to get started but slow and hard to get finished" syndrome. 
> 
> From your email you're obviously leaning towards C because you 
know it, so
> you'll want to transfer those skills and your question becomes: 
which C
> compiler?
> 
> GCC - Is for Linux, free software aficionados.  It works, isn't 
pretty,
> takes a bit of work to get all the bits up and running, has the 
stuff the
> commercial products have, but not in a ready-to-go hold-your-hand 
package.  
> 
> Imagecraft.  "Industrial Strength" professional, expensive 
compiler.  I
> can't talk much about it as it's beyond my budget so I haven't 
used it or
> seen it used.
> 
> My personal preference is Codevision.  There is a 
free "evaluation" version
> that is code-size limited, but good enough for all but the really 
big
> projects.  Even if you decide to pay for it, it's still very 
reasonable.
> Much easier to set up than GCC, has nice code generating wizards 
that save a
> bit of manual reading the first time you use a feature. Lots of 
code
> libraries.
> 
> ALL these C compilers meet your criteria, (except Imagecraft isn't 
very

> cheap) 
> 
> Good luck
> 
> Q

----- Original Message -----

From: "markevans_1" <markevans@iinet.net.au>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 07:31
Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: AVR Compiler: which is the best


> Thanks for all the replys.
>
> I have written a handful of programs for AVR and PIC in
assembly. I
> find once you start to include LCDs (especially graphical
ones) to
> the project the code gets quite large quite quickly. So my
main
> reason in looking for a higher level compiler is for
managability.
> As for language preference,
>
> I have significant experience in C/C++, java and a bit of
BASIC but
> am not adverse to learning a new latest-and-greatest
language. The
> main requirement is that there is a large body of freely
available
> existing code for the particular compiler-language so I
can drop in
> an I2C class, LCD routines etc and not waste my time
writing and
> debugging such code. Also I would like to have the option
to port my
> code to other micros if the need arises.

Go with GNU.  Yeah, its all written for the x86 and similar
desktop architectures, but it is a start.

There is also a project out of Switzerland called "Oberon"
and/or "BlueBottle".
http://bluebottle.ethz.ch/
It is an alternative operating system, similar in spirit to
Linux, that is freely available.  Although written for the
x86 platform, it is a graphical OS complete with its own
compiler which is open sourced (I think).  "Oberon" is the
language, it was created by Niklaus Wirth of Pascal fame.
Perhaps someone might want to create an AVR port of Oberon
and use that as a starting point for making BlueBottle into
a nifty  AVR development environment.  Oberon is a simpler
language than even C and shows a great deal of promise.
It is still very much a research project right now.

Just a thought as to where to go looking.

> Looking back on a few hundred lines of assembly you coded
a couple
> of years ago and untangling it is not much fun: even if it
is well
> documented. Furthermore, I find the vast bulk of code I
have written
> is related to GUI stuff. Output a string or draw a line to
an LCD,
> listen for keypresses etc: which requires a lot of code
that can be
> reused from project to project and has little need for
highly speed
> optermised code. Whenever speed becomes an issue though, I
would
> greatly prefer to code in inline assembly, if for nothing
more you
> can easily count clock cycles.
>
> I am still a student doing a Computer Science and
Engineering
> Degree. After a 3 year degree of CS you know compilers
generate
> assembly but are never taught or shown what it is or what
it looks
> like: for that matter you are told not to code in it. As
for
> engineering, they do introduce you to it, but there is
still a heavy
> focus on using C for low level stuff where ever possible.

They don't have compiler theory courses at your University?
I thought that was part of CSE.

> I understand the reasoning behind it but I still think
programmers
> should have an understanding of what a compiler does and
how it does
> it to better understand the implementations of the code
they write
> in high level languages.

One way to learn about this is to obtain a compiler that
excretes assembly language instead of object modules.  That
way, you can write test programmes and look at the output
that is generated.  When I was doing a 68HC11 project, my C
compiler was one that generated assembly files.  So I could
look at the generated assembly output and tune my source
code for the best (shortest, fastest) output.  Of course, I
am one of those people who has absolutely no problem with
taking the generated assembly code and hand tuning it even
further.

I would recommend the GCC compiler.  It's uglier than
homemade sin but it gets the job done (well) and you can
poke around under the hood.

> I will download a couple of demos of the mentioned AVR
Compilers and
> see which I prefer.
>
> Mark.
>


Erikc  - firewevr@airmail.net
///
"An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
"The Truth against the World."
        -- Bardic Motto