Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2007-01-24 by AVR Development
I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC compiler? Are there advantages in features and performance? Joe Llama [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by David VanHorn
On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@znet.com> wrote: > > I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I > have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR > Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC > compiler? Are > there advantages in features and performance? Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by AVR Development
Yes, but how much does that cost? What's better? IAR is most likely way too expensive.
-----Original Message----- From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David VanHorn Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:55 PM To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@ <mailto:AVRDevelopment%40znet.com> znet.com> wrote: > > I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I > have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR > Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC > compiler? Are > there advantages in features and performance? Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by AVR Development
Wait Wait, Nevermind. The software ports that are available use either IAR or ICC so I know the IAR is far more expensive than the ICC. ICC it is.
-----Original Message----- From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David VanHorn Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:55 PM To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@ <mailto:AVRDevelopment%40znet.com> znet.com> wrote: > > I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I > have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR > Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC > compiler? Are > there advantages in features and performance? Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by David VanHorn
On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@znet.com> wrote: > > Yes, but how much does that cost? What's better? IAR is most likely way > too expensive. If I remember right, about $200. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by AVR Development
Thanks David. Yeah, I did check that out it's about $195 USD.
-----Original Message----- From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David VanHorn Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:32 PM To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@ <mailto:AVRDevelopment%40znet.com> znet.com> wrote: > > Yes, but how much does that cost? What's better? IAR is most likely way > too expensive. If I remember right, about $200. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2007-01-24 by kernels_nz
I have found Codevision to be a very good reliable compiler at a very reasonable price. Very simple to use interface also. Cheers Hein B Auckland, New Zealand. --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "AVR Development" <AVRDevelopment@...> wrote: > > I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I > have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR > Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC compiler? Are
> there advantages in features and performance? > > > > Joe Llama > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2007-01-24 by James Ronald
So is there some vast source of ICC software ports that are available to use in commercial products? I did see that some of the application note sample code is written in ICC. Are there any other reasons to use ICC or IAR over AVRGCC? Are the libraries more robust? Thanks Jim ----- Original Message -----
From: "AVR Development" <AVRDevelopment@znet.com> To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:26 PM Subject: RE: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler > Wait Wait, Nevermind. The software ports that are available use either > IAR > or ICC so I know the IAR is far more expensive than the ICC. ICC it is. > > -----Original Message----- > From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf > Of David VanHorn > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:55 PM > To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler > > On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@ > <mailto:AVRDevelopment%40znet.com> znet.com> wrote: >> >> I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I >> have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR >> Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC >> compiler? Are >> there advantages in features and performance? > > Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR.
2007-01-24 by dlc@frii.com
Cost perhaps, IAR is quite expensive. According to an Atmel FAE I talked to at a seminar IAR generates the most efficient assembly, GCC-AVR was in second place and everything else was well behind that. That seminar was about 8 months ago, so who knows what is true now. But you know what "they" say about opinions, DLC
> So is there some vast source of ICC software ports that are available to > use > in commercial products? I did see that some of the application note > sample > code is written in ICC. Are there any other reasons to use ICC or IAR > over > AVRGCC? Are the libraries more robust? > > Thanks > Jim > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "AVR Development" <AVRDevelopment@znet.com> > To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:26 PM > Subject: RE: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler > > >> Wait Wait, Nevermind. The software ports that are available use either >> IAR >> or ICC so I know the IAR is far more expensive than the ICC. ICC it is. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On >> Behalf >> Of David VanHorn >> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:55 PM >> To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler >> >> On 1/23/07, AVR Development <AVRDevelopment@ >> <mailto:AVRDevelopment%40znet.com> znet.com> wrote: >>> >>> I need a compiler for ATmega64 and ATmega1281. Our budget is limited. I >>> have the free GCC compiler that comes with WinAVR and I use that in AVR >>> Studio. Is there any reason why I should upgrade to the ICC >>> compiler? Are >>> there advantages in features and performance? >> >> Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
2007-01-24 by David Kelly
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 04:29:48PM -0500, James Ronald wrote: > So is there some vast source of ICC software ports that are available > to use in commercial products? I did see that some of the application > note sample code is written in ICC. Are there any other reasons to > use ICC or IAR over AVRGCC? Are the libraries more robust? Yeah, all I've heard is hyperbole. Avr-gcc is very good. What it is not is an integrated IDE, nor a hand-holding Visual Studio-like collection of pre-written libraries. I looked into IAR and CV a couple of years ago and spent the next 9 months *very* pleased with avr-gcc. [...] > > Would codevision work for you? It's a BIG step between GCC and IAR. Enumerate please. How so? -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
2007-01-24 by Russell Shaw
kernels_nz wrote:
> I have found Codevision to be a very good reliable compiler at a very
> reasonable price. Very simple to use interface also.
Back in 2001, codevision had serious bugs. It'd be worth checking before
buying. These are the bugs that hastened my jump to gcc in 2001:
**************************************************
A global enum works ok:
#include<stdlib.h>
enum {where,why,what} alpha;
void main(void)
{
}
However, a local enum generates an illegal-symbol error:
#include<stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{
enum {where,why,what} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
This compiles without error:
#include <stdlib.h>
void input_from_panel(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void send_serial(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
However, this gives a "multiple declaration of What" error:
#include <stdlib.h>
void input_from_panel(void)
{ static enum {Waiting,What} state;
}
void send_serial(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
I got "illegal symbol" in:
struct TCB_struct{
unsigned char cnt,prio,task_state,swstk[16],*swstkptr;
void(**hwstkptr)(void); <<<< illegal symbol
void(*hwstk[8])(void);
struct TCB_struct* next_ptr;
};
This doesn't compile:
struct TCB_struct{
void(**hwstkptr)(void);
};
**************************************************
This compiles ok as a global variable:
void(*hwstk[8])(void);
This gives an "illegal symbol" error:
void(**hwstk)(void);
**************************************************
This works:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct {char What;} state;
void main(void)
{
}
This doesn't:
#include <stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{ struct {char What;} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
Likewise, for unions, this works:
#include <stdlib.h>
union {char What;} state;
void main(void)
{
}
This doesn't:
#include <stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{ union {char What;} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
The local definitions in functions give an "illegal symbol error".
**************************************************2007-01-25 by Mark Nowell
<Lurk Off!> I'd echo what David says. AVR-Gcc is very good, and its integration with AVR-Studio I find works extremely well for me. I use the STK500, JtagICE-Mk2, AVR-Studio and gcc or asm for my AVR development and I consider this an excellent and extremely cheap combination. (Oh and someone here recommended a CleverScope, which has also changed my life!). FWIW I have a couple of boards that use the Mega168/88 and I've recently decided to do all development with the M32 and probably modify my boards to use it. I don't use the extra code or I/O (yet) but Jtag development is superb, and DebugWire is not. Mark </Lurk On> David Kelly wrote:
> > > Yeah, all I've heard is hyperbole. Avr-gcc is very good. What it is not > is an integrated IDE, nor a hand-holding Visual Studio-like collection > of pre-written libraries. > > I looked into IAR and CV a couple of years ago and spent the next 9 > months *very* pleased with avr-gcc. >
2007-01-25 by larry barello
I used to use Ultra-edit and makefiles with avr-gcc and jtag debugging (early days I used an ICE200). I recently completed a project using DebugWire and it went pretty well. Certainly in the pecking order of debuggers and ICE is better than JTAG is better than DebugWire, but debug wire was pretty close once I got a handle on how it worked. Recently I switched to using Microsoft Visual Studio. I happen to have a copy for another project. Again, it works well with makefile avr-gcc so I essentially upgraded my development environment (Microsoft visual studio is a very powerful editor...) Also, I tried the latest avr-gcc (actually, one back) with the latest studio and like Mark says, below, it integrates very well. Actually, I was a bit shocked: In the past studio has been pretty rough. If it were not for Visual Studio I would switch to Studio for my development work just so it was integrated (visual studio is very nice, did I mention that?). Studio created the appropriate Makefile and built and debugged my simple test application (two files, some test code) with no fooling around: It just did it. As for code quality, the last time I did a direct comparison (ICC, CV, IAR and GCC) GCC was very close to IAR (the best) and ICC & CV were distant thirds (about three or four years ago). Of course benchmarks are funny things. I just compiled *my* code for those results. I tend to write lots of pointer based stuff and I have become pretty good at abstracting my code. IAR was something like 5-10% smaller with compiled code, but their libraries were much fatter and they had a lot of function call overhead that was "hidden" so in the end my actual application was a few bytes smaller with GCC than IAR. The tipping point, for me, was (of course money) the blazing fast, ultra compact floating point library for gcc. The latest code generators for GCC are something to behold. GCC still has holes & weaknesses, but if you periodically inspect the resulting assembly in critical code you can learn to avoid the problem areas. For general code: who cares as long as your project works and you get it done fast?
-----Original Message----- From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nowell Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:20 AM To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler <Lurk Off!> I'd echo what David says. AVR-Gcc is very good, and its integration with AVR-Studio I find works extremely well for me. I use the STK500, JtagICE-Mk2, AVR-Studio and gcc or asm for my AVR development and I consider this an excellent and extremely cheap combination. (Oh and someone here recommended a CleverScope, which has also changed my life!). FWIW I have a couple of boards that use the Mega168/88 and I've recently decided to do all development with the M32 and probably modify my boards to use it. I don't use the extra code or I/O (yet) but Jtag development is superb, and DebugWire is not. Mark </Lurk On> David Kelly wrote: > > > Yeah, all I've heard is hyperbole. Avr-gcc is very good. What it is not > is an integrated IDE, nor a hand-holding Visual Studio-like collection > of pre-written libraries. > > I looked into IAR and CV a couple of years ago and spent the next 9 > months *very* pleased with avr-gcc. > Yahoo! Groups Links
2007-01-25 by np np
I used to write Assemblers and found that to be a fully controlled way of building projects. If I needed a new function in the assembler I simply added it. Any bugs could be fixed by me rather than wait for an update from someone else. For basic AVR projects I stick to assembly language still to avoid bugs in compilers. For PC projects the matter is completely different due to the massive Windows API. I use Microsofts free C# compiler and have found very few bugs in it. http://www.ckp-railways.talktalk.net/pcbcad21.htm larry barello <yahoo@barello.net> wrote: I used to use Ultra-edit and makefiles with avr-gcc and jtag debugging (early days I used an ICE200). I recently completed a project using DebugWire and it went pretty well. Certainly in the pecking order of debuggers and ICE is better than JTAG is better than DebugWire, but debug wire was pretty close once I got a handle on how it worked. Recently I switched to using Microsoft Visual Studio. I happen to have a copy for another project. Again, it works well with makefile avr-gcc so I essentially upgraded my development environment (Microsoft visual studio is a very powerful editor...) Also, I tried the latest avr-gcc (actually, one back) with the latest studio and like Mark says, below, it integrates very well. Actually, I was a bit shocked: In the past studio has been pretty rough. If it were not for Visual Studio I would switch to Studio for my development work just so it was integrated (visual studio is very nice, did I mention that?). Studio created the appropriate Makefile and built and debugged my simple test application (two files, some test code) with no fooling around: It just did it. As for code quality, the last time I did a direct comparison (ICC, CV, IAR and GCC) GCC was very close to IAR (the best) and ICC & CV were distant thirds (about three or four years ago). Of course benchmarks are funny things. I just compiled *my* code for those results. I tend to write lots of pointer based stuff and I have become pretty good at abstracting my code. IAR was something like 5-10% smaller with compiled code, but their libraries were much fatter and they had a lot of function call overhead that was "hidden" so in the end my actual application was a few bytes smaller with GCC than IAR. The tipping point, for me, was (of course money) the blazing fast, ultra compact floating point library for gcc. The latest code generators for GCC are something to behold. GCC still has holes & weaknesses, but if you periodically inspect the resulting assembly in critical code you can learn to avoid the problem areas. For general code: who cares as long as your project works and you get it done fast?
-----Original Message-----
From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Nowell
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:20 AM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] I Need A Compiler
<Lurk Off!>
I'd echo what David says. AVR-Gcc is very good, and its integration with
AVR-Studio I find works extremely well for me. I use the STK500,
JtagICE-Mk2, AVR-Studio and gcc or asm for my AVR development and I
consider this an excellent and extremely cheap combination. (Oh and
someone here recommended a CleverScope, which has also changed my life!).
FWIW I have a couple of boards that use the Mega168/88 and I've recently
decided to do all development with the M32 and probably modify my boards
to use it. I don't use the extra code or I/O (yet) but Jtag development
is superb, and DebugWire is not.
Mark
</Lurk On>
David Kelly wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, all I've heard is hyperbole. Avr-gcc is very good. What it is not
> is an integrated IDE, nor a hand-holding Visual Studio-like collection
> of pre-written libraries.
>
> I looked into IAR and CV a couple of years ago and spent the next 9
> months *very* pleased with avr-gcc.
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2007-01-25 by John Samperi
At 09:19 PM 25/01/2007, you wrote: > Jtag development >is superb, and DebugWire is not. What exactly is not so superb with DW? :) I use JTAG, DW and (now rarely) the old ICE200 and can't tell the difference as far as debugging is concerned. Sure DW is still newer that JTAG and may have a few things to iron out but I have been using the Dragon in DW mode for the M88 and Tiny2313 in several projects for the past 6 months and I find it SUPERB :). I hope they put it into the M8515, the M8535 and anything else that it can be put into. I find the loss of 4 I/O lines annoying with JTAG. Regards John Samperi ******************************************************** Ampertronics Pty. Ltd. 11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA Tel. (02) 9674-6495 Fax (02) 9674-8745 Email: john@ampertronics.com.au Website http://www.ampertronics.com.au *Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly ********************************************************
2007-01-26 by steve childress
Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. _____
From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Russell Shaw
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:36 PM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: I Need A Compiler
kernels_nz wrote:
> I have found Codevision to be a very good reliable compiler at a very
> reasonable price. Very simple to use interface also.
Back in 2001, codevision had serious bugs. It'd be worth checking before
buying. These are the bugs that hastened my jump to gcc in 2001:
**************************************************
A global enum works ok:
#include<stdlib.h>
enum {where,why,what} alpha;
void main(void)
{
}
However, a local enum generates an illegal-symbol error:
#include<stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{
enum {where,why,what} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
This compiles without error:
#include <stdlib.h>
void input_from_panel(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void send_serial(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
However, this gives a "multiple declaration of What" error:
#include <stdlib.h>
void input_from_panel(void)
{ static enum {Waiting,What} state;
}
void send_serial(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
I got "illegal symbol" in:
struct TCB_struct{
unsigned char cnt,prio,task_state,swstk[16],*swstkptr;
void(**hwstkptr)(void); <<<< illegal symbol
void(*hwstk[8])(void);
struct TCB_struct* next_ptr;
};
This doesn't compile:
struct TCB_struct{
void(**hwstkptr)(void);
};
**************************************************
This compiles ok as a global variable:
void(*hwstk[8])(void);
This gives an "illegal symbol" error:
void(**hwstk)(void);
**************************************************
This works:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct {char What;} state;
void main(void)
{
}
This doesn't:
#include <stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{ struct {char What;} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
**************************************************
Likewise, for unions, this works:
#include <stdlib.h>
union {char What;} state;
void main(void)
{
}
This doesn't:
#include <stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{ union {char What;} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
The local definitions in functions give an "illegal symbol error".
**************************************************
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2007-01-26 by Mark Nowell
I haven't used DW now for a few months but my memory is that you can't program with DW and can't have both ISP and DW enabled at the same time, so the program/debug cycle isn't exactly seamless. Whereas the Jtag program/debug cycle is seriously quick and completely seamless. I find this difference means I make much more rapid progress with Jtag. However, my DW experience was based on M168 in a target board - I'd be pleased to discover it's not always such a pain. I agree about the 4 pins but that's part of my thinking in moving to the M32 for development - the cost of the 4 pins is more than offset by saved development time. Mark John Samperi wrote:
> At 09:19 PM 25/01/2007, you wrote: > >> Jtag development >> is superb, and DebugWire is not. >> > > What exactly is not so superb with DW? :) I use JTAG, DW and > (now rarely) the old ICE200 and can't tell the difference as far > as debugging is concerned. Sure DW is still newer that JTAG and > may have a few things to iron out but I have been using the Dragon > in DW mode for the M88 and Tiny2313 in several projects for the past > 6 months and I find it SUPERB :). > I hope they put it into the M8515, the M8535 and anything else that > it can be put into. I find the loss of 4 I/O lines annoying with JTAG. > > >
2007-01-28 by stevech11
--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote: > > steve childress wrote: > > Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. > > Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good. > Try before you buy. > As I said, CV has worked very well for me, i.e., I did "try before you buy". Indeed, it supports a tiny memory model for the AVRs with 256 bytes of RAM or less. This yields 8 bit pointers to RAM. One complex program I wrote was far smaller with this mode than with GCC or BASCOM or IAR. Indeed, with GCC the code was too large to fit in the flash. I am not pumping CV - I use GCC a lot too. But CV is a fine product and the support is A+++.
2007-01-28 by Russell Shaw
steve childress wrote: > Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good. Try before you buy.
2007-01-28 by Cat C
Schminux has much fewer users, but that doesn't mean anything either. ----Original Message Follows----
From: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au> Reply-To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: I Need A Compiler Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:06:30 +1100 steve childress wrote: > Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good. Try before you buy. Yahoo! Groups Links _________________________________________________________________ Buy, Load, Play. The new Sympatico / MSN Music Store works seamlessly with Windows Media Player. Just Click PLAY. http://musicstore.sympatico.msn.ca/content/viewer.aspx?cid=SMS_Sept192006
2007-01-28 by Russell Shaw
stevech11 wrote: > --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote: >> steve childress wrote: >>> Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. >> Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good. >> Try before you buy. >> > As I said, CV has worked very well for me, i.e., I did "try before you > buy". > > Indeed, it supports a tiny memory model for the AVRs with 256 bytes of > RAM or less. This yields 8 bit pointers to RAM. One complex program I > wrote was far smaller with this mode than with GCC or BASCOM or IAR. > Indeed, with GCC the code was too large to fit in the flash. > > I am not pumping CV - I use GCC a lot too. But CV is a fine product > and the support is A+++. Does it compile the code examples i provided without error messages?
2007-01-28 by Russell Shaw
Russell Shaw wrote:
> stevech11 wrote:
>> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote:
>>> steve childress wrote:
>>>> Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base.
>>> Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good.
>>> Try before you buy.
>>>
>> As I said, CV has worked very well for me, i.e., I did "try before you
>> buy".
>>
>> Indeed, it supports a tiny memory model for the AVRs with 256 bytes of
>> RAM or less. This yields 8 bit pointers to RAM. One complex program I
>> wrote was far smaller with this mode than with GCC or BASCOM or IAR.
>> Indeed, with GCC the code was too large to fit in the flash.
>>
>> I am not pumping CV - I use GCC a lot too. But CV is a fine product
>> and the support is A+++.
>
> Does it compile the code examples i provided without error messages?
Oh boy do i know how to silence a list;) Absolutely ROTFLMAO:)
I wouldn't normally have bothered, but seeing as though the list went
ever so silent, i headed on over to http://www.hpinfotech.ro/html/download.htm,
installed the eval version, and made a simple project with:
#include<stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{
enum {where,why,what} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
Result?: main.c(5): illegal symbol
*****************************************************************
#include<stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{
struct {
char What;
} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
Result?: main.c(5): illegal symbol
*****************************************************************
#include<stdlib.h>
void func1(void)
{
union {
char What;
} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
Result?: main.c(5): illegal symbol
*****************************************************************
This one compiles ok:
#include <stdlib.h>
void input_from_panel(void)
{ static enum {Waiting,What} state;
}
void send_serial(void)
{ static enum {What} state;
}
void main(void)
{
}
*****************************************************************
This one compiles ok:
struct TCB_struct{
unsigned char cnt,prio,task_state,swstk[16],*swstkptr;
void(**hwstkptr)(void);
void(*hwstk[8])(void);
struct TCB_struct* next_ptr;
};
*****************************************************************
This one compiles ok:
void(**hwstk)(void);
*****************************************************************
It just sums up the quality of Windoze crud in general. Codevision
users must be really basic C noobs.
Three basic C syntax bugs haven't been fixed for 5 freekin YEARS, and
you PAYED money for this? No wonder no one owned up to it.2007-01-28 by Roy E. Burrage
It could be, Russell, that the rest of us didn't want to get involved
with this silliness. Just because a program will not compile one
project doesn't mean that it won't do a passable, even an exemplary, job
for most of what an individual wants to do. However, that being stated,
I don't use anything but assembler on a microcontroller and none of my
projects are very complex, being just data acquisition, control and test
automation.
I also use Windows and in something on the order of 6 years of using XP,
it's only locked up on me 1 time...and that was when a virus got in the
system.
Stop trying to pick a fight or start an argument.
REB
Russell Shaw wrote:
>Russell Shaw wrote:
>
>
>>stevech11 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>steve childress wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good.
>>>>Try before you buy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As I said, CV has worked very well for me, i.e., I did "try before you
>>>buy".
>>>
>>>Indeed, it supports a tiny memory model for the AVRs with 256 bytes of
>>>RAM or less. This yields 8 bit pointers to RAM. One complex program I
>>>wrote was far smaller with this mode than with GCC or BASCOM or IAR.
>>>Indeed, with GCC the code was too large to fit in the flash.
>>>
>>>I am not pumping CV - I use GCC a lot too. But CV is a fine product
>>>and the support is A+++.
>>>
>>>
>>Does it compile the code examples i provided without error messages?
>>
>>
>
>Oh boy do i know how to silence a list;) Absolutely ROTFLMAO:)
>
>I wouldn't normally have bothered, but seeing as though the list went
>ever so silent, i headed on over to http://www.hpinfotech.ro/html/download.htm,
>installed the eval version, and made a simple project with:
>
>#include<stdlib.h>
>
>void func1(void)
>{
> enum {where,why,what} state;
>}
>
>void main(void)
>{
>}
>
>Result?: main.c(5): illegal symbol
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2007-01-29 by John Samperi
At 09:41 PM 26/01/2007, you wrote: >you can't program with DW and can't have both ISP and DW enabled at >the same time, >so the program/debug cycle isn't exactly seamless. True, but why would you want to both program and debug at the same time on the same chip that has DW enabled? Set the fuses BEFORE you start a DW session, then simply "Build and run" from then on. The new code will be automatically download into the chip each time you have a successful build. You don't even have to program the DW fuse as many people mistakenly do, this will also be done automatically the first time you start a debugging session. Once you finish debugging simply disable DW from within a DW session and your chip is as good as new....well minus a few hundred write lives :) Regards John Samperi ******************************************************** Ampertronics Pty. Ltd. 11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA Tel. (02) 9674-6495 Fax (02) 9674-8745 Email: john@ampertronics.com.au Website http://www.ampertronics.com.au *Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly ********************************************************
2007-01-30 by Mark Nowell
John It sounds to me as though you're saying that you _can_ program through DW - and re-reading the data-sheet it appears this should be the case - something I must look into further - thanks for the prod. It seems there has been a deal of discussion on AVRFreaks about possible problems with JtagICE II and DW. Perhaps my DW experience has been tainted by the fact that my setup simply doesn't do what it doesn't say on the tin. As far as enabling the DW fuse goes, the JtagICE II section on the DW interface says: "AVR devices with debugWIRE interface are shipped with the DWEN fuse un-programmed from the factory. The debugWIRE interface itself cannot enable this fuse." Is this wrong? Thanks, Mark John Samperi wrote:
> At 09:41 PM 26/01/2007, you wrote: > >> you can't program with DW and can't have both ISP and DW enabled at >> the same time, >> so the program/debug cycle isn't exactly seamless. >> > > True, but why would you want to both program and debug at the same time > on the same chip that has DW enabled? Set the fuses BEFORE you start a DW > session, then simply "Build and run" from then on. The new code will be > automatically download into the chip each time you have a successful build. > > You don't even have to program the DW fuse as many people mistakenly do, > this will also be done automatically the first time you start a debugging > session. Once you finish debugging simply disable DW from within a DW > session and your chip is as good as new....well minus a few hundred write > lives :) > >
2007-01-30 by John Samperi
At 09:01 PM 30/01/2007, you wrote: >It sounds to me as though you're saying that you _can_ program through >DW - You CANNOT program the fuses through DW but Flash and EEPROM get programmed (or reprogrammed) automatically every time you enter a debug session or do a "build and run". ie you don't get the usual programming screen but the SUCCESSFULLY assembled or compiled hex and eep files just get dumped into the target chip. In other words DW is NOT intended as a general purpose programmer as you could use JTAG or ISP but there is no need to go into ISP, program the chip, enable DW, start a debug session, find a bug, exit DW, fix the bug and restart allover again as some people seem to do. >"AVR devices with debugWIRE interface are shipped with the DWEN fuse >un-programmed from the factory. The debugWIRE interface itself cannot >enable this fuse." This may refer to the DW setup of V+, GND and RESET pins only on which DW runs. If you just plug the usual 6 way ISP connector into your target, Studio will switch between ISP (all 6 pins needed) and DW (only 3 pins needed) as required. Try this out. With a new chip or a chip that has DW disabled. Enter ISP mode and program the fuses (EXCEPT DW) as required ie clock and BOD fuse. Leave the 6 way ISP cable in place. Go into a DW project, if you have already successfully generated both the .hex and eep files (if used) go into debug> start debugging. A window will appear prompting you to either retry DW (as it can't connect because DW is off at the moment) or enable DW though ISP. Select the latter. DW gets enable via ISP (remember that it's already connected above). FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS about cycling the target power. You are now into DW mode, your code will be automatically dumped into the chip and the cursor will go the reset vector. You are now ready to either run, single step or whatever. If and when you find any bugs, fix them and do a "build and run", your code will be automatically dumped into the chip and the cursor will go the reset vector as above. If you find lots of errors it may be wise just to do a build untill successful and then do a "build and run". NEVER EXIT DW untill your code is completely debugged and you want to put the board into field use. If this is a workshop board used for debugging purpose you can leave DW enabled at all times. NOTE: The above is based on the Dragon but I suspect the JTAG mk2 will work the same as far as DW is concerned. The Miso, Mosi and CLK lines are not used in DW mode but I found some loading on those lines, so if you use any of those pins for input you may want to make a 3 wire "octopus" DW lead to completely free up those 3 pins. I think that the JTAG mk2 already comes with "octopus" leads. Regards John Samperi ******************************************************** Ampertronics Pty. Ltd. 11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA Tel. (02) 9674-6495 Fax (02) 9674-8745 Email: john@ampertronics.com.au Website http://www.ampertronics.com.au *Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly ********************************************************
2007-01-30 by kernels_nz
I can only agree with REB, I find Codevision VERY good, and no, ive never tried to compile structs, enums or unions that are local to functions. All the code examples you showed will compile fine when making those statements global. Ive also not met many "real world" programmers that are too concerned with enums or unions, structs I use a bit just to tidy up code. I guess were all C-Noobs. Luckily we can make "real world" product work reliably even when our compiler is so terrible that it can even deal with a local union. hahaha whatever. Cheers Hein B Auckland, New Zealand. --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Roy E. Burrage" <RBurrage@...> wrote: > > It could be, Russell, that the rest of us didn't want to get involved > with this silliness. Just because a program will not compile one > project doesn't mean that it won't do a passable, even an exemplary, job > for most of what an individual wants to do. However, that being stated, > I don't use anything but assembler on a microcontroller and none of my > projects are very complex, being just data acquisition, control and test > automation. > > I also use Windows and in something on the order of 6 years of using XP, > it's only locked up on me 1 time...and that was when a virus got in the > system. > > Stop trying to pick a fight or start an argument. > > > REB > > > > Russell Shaw wrote: > > >Russell Shaw wrote: > > > > > >>stevech11 wrote: > >> > >> > >>>--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>steve childress wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Codevision worked well for me and it has a large user base. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Windoze has a lot of users too, but it doesn't mean it's any good. > >>>>Try before you buy. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>As I said, CV has worked very well for me, i.e., I did "try before you > >>>buy". > >>> > >>>Indeed, it supports a tiny memory model for the AVRs with 256 bytes of > >>>RAM or less. This yields 8 bit pointers to RAM. One complex program I > >>>wrote was far smaller with this mode than with GCC or BASCOM or IAR. > >>>Indeed, with GCC the code was too large to fit in the flash. > >>> > >>>I am not pumping CV - I use GCC a lot too. But CV is a fine product > >>>and the support is A+++. > >>> > >>> > >>Does it compile the code examples i provided without error messages? > >> > >> > > > >Oh boy do i know how to silence a list;) Absolutely ROTFLMAO:) > > > >I wouldn't normally have bothered, but seeing as though the list went > >ever so silent, i headed on over to http://www.hpinfotech.ro/html/download.htm,
> >installed the eval version, and made a simple project with:
> >
> >#include<stdlib.h>
> >
> >void func1(void)
> >{
> > enum {where,why,what} state;
> >}
> >
> >void main(void)
> >{
> >}
> >
> >Result?: main.c(5): illegal symbol
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>2007-01-31 by Russell Shaw
kernels_nz wrote: > I can only agree with REB, I find Codevision VERY good, and no, ive > never tried to compile structs, enums or unions that are local to > functions. All the code examples you showed will compile fine when > making those statements global. > > Ive also not met many "real world" programmers that are too concerned > with enums or unions, structs I use a bit just to tidy up code. I > guess were all C-Noobs. Luckily we can make "real world" product work > reliably even when our compiler is so terrible that it can even deal > with a local union. > > hahaha whatever. It is unbelievable how anyone can accept that from something that calls itself a C compiler. Such a "feature" is bone-headedly easy to put into a compiler that it should've been there from the start. I've written a few compiler-like programs and compiler generator tools. I reported these problems multiple times when i had the full licence. Apart from having to remember these stupid limitations, it makes a shitload of unneccessary work to port a significant amount of code from other compilers.
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, "Roy E. Burrage" <RBurrage@...> wrote: >> It could be, Russell, that the rest of us didn't want to get involved >> with this silliness. Just because a program will not compile one >> project doesn't mean that it won't do a passable, even an exemplary, job >> for most of what an individual wants to do. However, that being stated, >> I don't use anything but assembler on a microcontroller and none of my >> projects are very complex, being just data acquisition, control and test >> automation. >> >> I also use Windows and in something on the order of 6 years of using XP, >> it's only locked up on me 1 time...and that was when a virus got in the >> system. >> >> Stop trying to pick a fight or start an argument.