Lpc2000

Hi

Imagecraft released a beta 1 version of the ARM compiler.
Simple editor and compiler.
One thing I liked is Application Builder, one I am missing in
CrossWorks. Are you there Paul ? :).

Not just for begining a project, but also a quick way to compare the
different ARM CPU to each other. (LPC2104 to AT91SAM7S32) Nice feature
Imagecraft.

One thing I am missing is the debugging feature, how is this done in 
Imagecraft ?

best regards

John

John, 

> Imagecraft released a beta 1 version of the ARM compiler.
> Simple editor and compiler.
> One thing I liked is Application Builder, one I am missing in 
> CrossWorks. Are you there Paul ? :).

There are just too many ARM variants in the world to make such a thing
viable, hence RAL's focus on providing a nice IDE with integrated (and
extensible) flash loading and integrated debugging--and support for ARM9
and XScale in the v1.3 release.  Personally, I like writing my own code
to drive peripherals and set up a chip rather than get something else to
set it up for me--at some point, it's inevitable that you need to read
the data sheet.

> Not just for begining a project, but also a quick way to 
> compare the different ARM CPU to each other. (LPC2104 to 
> AT91SAM7S32) Nice feature Imagecraft.
> 
> One thing I am missing is the debugging feature, how is this 
> done in Imagecraft ?

Dunno.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and now AVR processors

Hi Paul, I haven't seen the original msg from John yet (mail ordering 
problem?), so I will go ahead and answer yours...

At 07:40 PM 1/3/2005, Paul Curtis wrote:


>John,
>
> > Imagecraft released a beta 1 version of the ARM compiler.
> > Simple editor and compiler.
> > One thing I liked is Application Builder, one I am missing in
> > CrossWorks. Are you there Paul ? :).
>
>There are just too many ARM variants in the world to make such a thing
>viable, hence RAL's focus on providing a nice IDE with integrated (and
>extensible) flash loading and integrated debugging--and support for ARM9
>and XScale in the v1.3 release.  Personally, I like writing my own code
>to drive peripherals and set up a chip rather than get something else to
>set it up for me--at some point, it's inevitable that you need to read
>the data sheet.

Everyone has (to find) its own niche. For us, it's the most features for 
the best price / performance ratio. The AppBuilder does not replace the 
data sheet but do save a lot of time.


> > Not just for begining a project, but also a quick way to
> > compare the different ARM CPU to each other. (LPC2104 to
> > AT91SAM7S32) Nice feature Imagecraft.
> >

Thanks John. Since the AppBuilder is a big piece of work, if you have some 
other ARM micros you like, pls bug the silicon manufacturers to contact us 
and may be support us with a few clams. I know it's more difficult than 
squeezing blood from rocks but you never know until you try. We are 
committed to supporting the Philips LPC series and the Atmel SAM series. No 
plan to support anything else yet until we see a reason to... We expect to 
be the major player in the "ARM compilers for the masses" market but we do 
only have limited resources.

>
> > One thing I am missing is the debugging feature, how is this
> > done in Imagecraft ?

*raise hand* I do, I do :-)

Nohau EMUL-ARM/Seehau directly supports our DBG debug file, and we do emit 
ELF/DWARF2 per the DWARF2 documentation so in theory, any DWARF capable 
debuggers (that should be all of them) should work.

>Dunno.
>
>--
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and now AVR processors

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

>> Imagecraft released a beta 1 version of the ARM compiler.
>> Simple editor and compiler.
>> One thing I liked is Application Builder, one I am missing in 
>> CrossWorks. Are you there Paul ? :).
 
> Personally, I like writing my own code
> to drive peripherals and set up a chip
> rather than get something else to set it up for me
> --at some point, it's inevitable that you need to read
> the data sheet.

I agree.  I tried the IAR MakeApp and in the end it really just ended 
up wasting my time.  I yanked all the MA code out and wrote it myself.

We'd all like to save time and have some RAD tool setup the periphs 
for us.  Unfortunately there's just no free lunch.  As soon as you 
have problems with the RAD setup and some periphs you have to dive 
into the hundreds of pages of chip doc anyway.  Worse yet, you then 
have to dive into the RAD code and figure out what it is actually 
doing that you may or may not want or expected.

In the end you will have to understand the inner workings of the 
periph registers.  In most cases there is just no way around that.

I think what's most helpful is looking at example code.  That's 
really what I ended up doing with the MakeApp code.  But a couple of 
other good design examples would have sufficed as well.

The time is not in writing the simple init code for the periphs, the 
time is in understanding the operation of the periphs. 

Chris.

At 05:44 PM 1/4/2005, sig5534 wrote:
>I agree.  I tried the IAR MakeApp and in the end it really just ended
>up wasting my time.  I yanked all the MA code out and wrote it myself.

That's all well and good. Do keep in mind that the original poster was 
referring to our (ImageCraft) Application Builder, which does not do quite 
the same thing as IAR's MakeApp. We have tons of customers who swear by it 
on our other products. Also keep in mind that our AppBuilder is part of our 
standard $199 compiler.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

Hi all,

I've used Richard's compiler for the AVR microcontroller and I swear to the
"code wizard" why on earth would one, bother waisting time setting the same
registers for you when you can click through a "guide" set what you need and
let the compiler take care of the basics... You couldn't write it else way
anyhow! 

IAR's MakeApp is a crap program I've tried it and disliked it at the very
beginning the "code wizard" found in Richards compiler and also in the
CodeVisionAVR compiler is just marvellous it saves you an abundance of time
I would not want to live without it and I cant see who I did before :-D 

Regards
Lasse M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard [mailto:richard-lists@...] 
Sent: 5. januar 2005 03:27
To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1


At 05:44 PM 1/4/2005, sig5534 wrote:
>I agree.  I tried the IAR MakeApp and in the end it really just ended
>up wasting my time.  I yanked all the MA code out and wrote it myself.

That's all well and good. Do keep in mind that the original poster was 
referring to our (ImageCraft) Application Builder, which does not do quite 
the same thing as IAR's MakeApp. We have tons of customers who swear by it 
on our other products. Also keep in mind that our AppBuilder is part of our 
standard $199 compiler.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

I have used the Imagecraft AppBuilder a lot as well on the AVR.  It is
great.  He also has a setup wizard for Salvo which I also use.  It is
very nice and useful.  I am looking for the same interface with the ARM.

Some people prefer to write in assembler too...

Kelly


--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Lasse Madsen" <lasse.madsen@e...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've used Richard's compiler for the AVR microcontroller and I swear
to the
> "code wizard" why on earth would one, bother waisting time setting
the same
> registers for you when you can click through a "guide" set what you
need and
> let the compiler take care of the basics... You couldn't write it
else way
> anyhow! 
> 
> IAR's MakeApp is a crap program I've tried it and disliked it at the
very
> beginning the "code wizard" found in Richards compiler and also in the
> CodeVisionAVR compiler is just marvellous it saves you an abundance
of time
> I would not want to live without it and I cant see who I did before :-D 
> 
> Regards
> Lasse M.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [mailto:richard-lists@i...] 
> Sent: 5. januar 2005 03:27
> To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1
> 
> 
> At 05:44 PM 1/4/2005, sig5534 wrote:
> >I agree.  I tried the IAR MakeApp and in the end it really just ended
> >up wasting my time.  I yanked all the MA code out and wrote it myself.
> 
> That's all well and good. Do keep in mind that the original poster was 
> referring to our (ImageCraft) Application Builder, which does not do
quite 
> the same thing as IAR's MakeApp. We have tons of customers who swear
by it 
> on our other products. Also keep in mind that our AppBuilder is part
of our 
> standard $199 compiler.
> 
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
please 

> use richard at imagecraft.com) 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links

>> IAR's MakeApp is a crap program I've tried it and disliked

I do not agree with that.  It is certainly not a "crap" program, 
rather it is a very complex program that has lofty goals.  One can 
certainly argue about the effectiveness and usefulness of its goals, 
but IAR put a tremendous amount of work into that beast.

Richard's approach is merely to setup and do some basic register 
inits.  That's fine and may or may not be better.  But bare in mind 
that MakeApp spits out code that enables you to instantly make high 
level calls to read/write data arrays over I2C, SPI, UARTs, etc.  
MakeApp is a lot more than just some basic inits.  At the minimum, it 
is a very good source of example code that goes far deeper into 
actual periph operation and usage.

I ran a lot of their routines and everything I tested worked just 
fine.  My biggest complaint was the shear volume of MakeApp code 
generated.  Heavily commented with a large scale structure and that 
makes it very deep and time consuming to wade through.  There's just 
so much of it.  But it is very well written and extremely well 
organized.

I found it highly useful as a powerful library of examples.  That's 
how it saved me time, and it certainly saved me more than $200 worth 
of time.  It had no problem paying for itself.

Chris.

At 11:46 PM 1/4/2005, sig5534 wrote:
>I do not agree with that.  It is certainly not a "crap" program,
>rather it is a very complex program that has lofty goals.  One can
>certainly argue about the effectiveness and usefulness of its goals,
>but IAR put a tremendous amount of work into that beast.

So Chris, not to trash other people's products, but something sound odd 
from your mail on the subject of MakeApp: IAR charges $??? for it and I am 
sure their goal is not to serve as a "powerful library of examples," but 
that it is "a family of visual development tools that helps you design and 
implement device drivers" (from their website).

Obviously you are not using the program the way they are intend. By this 
metric, they are not meeting their goals. The fact that you have saved 
"more than $200 worth of time" is called making hay when you have dead 
grass :-) You should let them know that and may be they will better 
re-position the product.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

> Obviously you are not using the program the way they are intend.

That's true, and as I said I ended up not using the MA code as is, 
but rewrote what I needed in the way I needed it.

I bought the IAR Kickstart kit for $195, and MakeApp for the 
LPC2104/5/6 comes with that.  But I also believe they sell the 
MakeApp ala cart for other devices for about $150-$200 too.  So let's 
just call it $200 for MakeApp.

The value of the example code you get easily pays for itself.

I was told by one sales person from another compiler company that the 
reason they charge/justify the $XXXX prices is because of the 'good 
examples' they provide you with that get you up and running quickly.  
Agree or not, that is one of their sales points.  Example code is 
worth a lot.

So yes I think the biggest value in MakeApp is the example code it 
provides.  No question about it.  But we are splitting hairs.  
Whether I use their code as is, or read it for example material, it 
is still helping me get my code/project done. And after all that's 
what its all about.

Chris.

Hi Chris

The MakeApp. from IAR and Application Builder from Imagecraft is 2
different things. The Application Builder is like the "Code wizard" in
Codevision AVR compiler.

The Application Builder make simple setup of different register of the
CPU. Is does not make an Application !.
It do give you a quick start. Of course you have read the user manual
to learn details of the registers.

Another feature is that you quick can compare diffent CPU, ex. LPC2104
and AT91SAM7S32, without reading the whole User Manual for both CPUs. 
Give it a try !

I never liked the MakeApp from IAR.


best regards

John

How true. I was an original IAR Kickstart owner when I started
looking at the LPC processors. I've been writing embedded control for over
25 years (start with the Intel 4004) and one thing I came to realize is that
the examples and technical information in the data sheets and user manuals a
fraught with errors. I tried the MakeApp program and was impressed with what
it did, but I do not like to rely on code generated from programs. So I
designed my own program and start up files by using the application examples
I received with the board. That went very well for the first 3 days, but I
was stuck on the SPI one day and was waiting for a tech. response from IAR (
and Philips) when I decided to try the MakeApp again but for real. Worked
perfectly and there where lots of comments in the source it generated. I was
up and running in about 10 minutes and I was able to use the code generated
(with  a few modifications) with no problems. I still think they have a way
to go, but I think it's a great start. 

	Now I also played with the PIC processors and a compiler from a
little company called CC. They tried the same thing and in some ways it was
useful, but I found out that only about 25 to 40% of the code was good and
the rest was using the wrong registers or comparator in the example. I tried
it a few times and found that it messed up the code about 50% of the times.
The MakeApp (even though lengthily in design layout targeted towards large
scale design) did work every time I used it.

	Over all, both programs allowed me to better understand what needed
to be done, even though I still wasted some time trying to figure out what
they did and why. I say they are great template makers then code writers. In
that sense they are better then trying to read the manual and getting
discrepancies on 4 different pages for the same input line.

	We all have our own programming ideals and opinions on the way
something should be designed. All I'm saying is that the MakeApp did the job
when I needed it with little effort.

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: sig5534 [mailto:sig5534@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 4:23 AM
To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1




> Obviously you are not using the program the way they are intend.

That's true, and as I said I ended up not using the MA code as is, 
but rewrote what I needed in the way I needed it.

I bought the IAR Kickstart kit for $195, and MakeApp for the 
LPC2104/5/6 comes with that.  But I also believe they sell the 
MakeApp ala cart for other devices for about $150-$200 too.  So let's 
just call it $200 for MakeApp.

The value of the example code you get easily pays for itself.

I was told by one sales person from another compiler company that the 
reason they charge/justify the $XXXX prices is because of the 'good 
examples' they provide you with that get you up and running quickly.  
Agree or not, that is one of their sales points.  Example code is 
worth a lot.

So yes I think the biggest value in MakeApp is the example code it 
provides.  No question about it.  But we are splitting hairs.  
Whether I use their code as is, or read it for example material, it 
is still helping me get my code/project done. And after all that's 
what its all about.

Chris.





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

I have not used ImageCraft's Application Builder.  My thought is if I am
developing an Application, I'd better know the peripherals performing the
work. You *WILL* eventually need to read the datasheet to know what's going
on. As someone earlier said there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Although tools like this can be a kickstart for learning a new chip.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lasse Madsen [mailto:lasse.madsen@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:43 PM
> To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've used Richard's compiler for the AVR microcontroller and 
> I swear to the "code wizard" why on earth would one, bother 
> waisting time setting the same registers for you when you can 
> click through a "guide" set what you need and let the 
> compiler take care of the basics... You couldn't write it 
> else way anyhow! 
> 
> IAR's MakeApp is a crap program I've tried it and disliked it 
> at the very beginning the "code wizard" found in Richards 
> compiler and also in the CodeVisionAVR compiler is just 
> marvellous it saves you an abundance of time I would not want 
> to live without it and I cant see who I did before :-D 
> 
> Regards
> Lasse M.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [mailto:richard-lists@...]
> Sent: 5. januar 2005 03:27
> To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1
> 
> 
> At 05:44 PM 1/4/2005, sig5534 wrote:
> >I agree.  I tried the IAR MakeApp and in the end it really just ended
> >up wasting my time.  I yanked all the MA code out and wrote 
> it myself.
> 
> That's all well and good. Do keep in mind that the original 
> poster was 
> referring to our (ImageCraft) Application Builder, which does 
> not do quite 
> the same thing as IAR's MakeApp. We have tons of customers 
> who swear by it 
> on our other products. Also keep in mind that our AppBuilder 
> is part of our 
> standard $199 compiler.
> 
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me 
> directly, please 
> use richard at imagecraft.com) 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

Hi Joe,

overall I think most of us violently agree that the software developer
needs to know the peripherals and read that.. Datasheet or Users
Manual to write the code that goes into a production circuit.
A big however, before you decide which device to go with, you want to
evaluate the devices in question. Having a tool like that from
Imagecraft or the more complex tool from IAR during such a phase helps
big time. Even afterwards, using the generated code as a template gets
you going faster. 
For evaluation purposes a code generator is extremly useful for
production code it is a template generator. 

My experience is that needing to read the manual to get an example
running that relates to your application often takes too long.
Starting with a proof of concept gives you a much better feeling to
make the right choice using a particular micro. 

Cheers, Bob

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Hlebasko" <jhlebasko@i...> wrote:
> I have not used ImageCraft's Application Builder.  My thought is if I am
> developing an Application, I'd better know the peripherals
performing the
> work. You *WILL* eventually need to read the datasheet to know
what's going
> on. As someone earlier said there is no such thing as a free lunch.
> Although tools like this can be a kickstart for learning a new chip.
> 
> Joe
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lasse Madsen [mailto:lasse.madsen@e...] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:43 PM
> > To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Re: Imagecraft ARM compiler release beta1
> > 
---snip ----