Lpc2000

>I can't
> find anything about the footprint for the FreeRTOS but know it can be
> very low for Contiki and that services are easy to modularizes.

Below are two figures obtained from the linker file using the IAR compiler.
The first has all optional components removed, the second has all optional
components included, full optimisation:

Minimal configuration kernel build = 3040 bytes.
Max configuration kernel build = 4060 bytes (all features)

May be of interest to some that the minimal build on CORTEX M3 using RVDS 
(ARM, Keil, ...) compiler and maximum optimisation is coming out at 2284 
bytes.  Different compiler though so not an apples for apples comparison.


> What are the differences between them?

Contiki as far as I'm aware (note I have not used it so info may be 
inaccurate, please check before making decisions) is a cooperative only 
kernel and includes the graphical interface.  It uses protothreads so uses 
much less RAM than a traditional pre-emptive kernel as each 'thread' uses 
the same stack.  It has low RAM and ROM usage.

FreeRTOS up until V4.0.0 was a more traditional kernel that could be used in 
cooperative of fully pre-emptive mode.  V4.0.0 introduces co-routines which 
are similar to Contiki threads so can reduce the RAM usage accordingly.  You 
therefore have the choice of using traditional tasks (with a stack each), 
co-routines, or a combination of both.

Regards,
Richard.


http://www.FreeRTOS.org
*Now for ARM CORTEX M3!*


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ake Hedman, eurosource" <akhe@...>
To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: contiiki for LPC


> Joel Winarske wrote:
>>  > Why contiki over something like freeRTOS or uCLinux?  No intention of
>>  > derailing the thread, just curious.
>>
>> You've identified two excercises:
>> 1.  Port an IP stack - Contiki has the most current uIP source.
>> 2.  Port an RTOS - There's currently a port of FreeRTOS for LPC2129 in 
>> the
>> FreeRTOS code base.
>>
>>
>> Joel
>>
>
> Sorry for not responding right away but a flue caught me. :-(
>
> For most of my work I don't like to add the complexity of a RT-kernel.
> Something like cooperation multitasking is OK for most situations. But
> if you want to have several of the RFC's handled in a module things
> always get a bit messy. Also it is hard to write the code in a nice
> modular fashion.
>
> Of course both FreeRTOS and Contiki solve this problem. Also when I look
> at them they appear to provide much the same services apart from the GUI
> functionality in Contiki which I probably will not use anyway. I can't
> find anything about the footprint for the FreeRTOS but know it can be
> very low for Contiki and that services are easy to modularizes.
>
> What are the differences between them?
>
> Cheers
> /Ake
>
>
> -- 
>  ---
> Ake Hedman (YAP - Yet Another Programmer)
> eurosource, Brattbergavagen 17, 820 50 LOS, Sweden
> Phone: (46) 657 413430 Cellular: (46) 73 0533 146
> Company home: http://www.eurosource.se
> Kryddor/Te/Kaffe: http://www.brattberg.com
> Personal homepage: http://www.eurosource.se/akhe
> Automated home: http://www.vscp.org
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  a..  Visit your group "lpc2000" on the web.
>
>  b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>