32-Bit Microcontroller for New Project

If this is like standard Eclipse, then in the Problems table (where the errors and warnings are) you can sort the columns to make the navigation much simpler. Sort by location to get all the errors in line number order within file order.

Microchip and Rowley do not provide AVR32 tool chains as far as I know, so I don't think this is a good example. Its much more likely to be a linker configuration problem and MPLAB and CrossStudio have very different linkers.

--
Regards,
Richard.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
FreeRTOS.org
Loading thread data ...

der

That would work, but when more than one file has compilation errors, the build process will stop after the first error. This will be a different file every time. Only one file appears in the Problems table.

For example, let's say my project has three files, file1.c, file2.c, and file3.c, all with syntax errors. If I do a build, the build may start with file2.c and flag an error. If I fix the error and do a rebuild, it may start building with file1.c and stop on the error in that file. It may be several more build attempts before I see if the fixes I made to file2.c are okay. It's this jumping around that I find annoying.

o I

r

rs.

I agree, it's probably a linker configuration problem, but I'm using the default linker configuration and this should be set up with sane defaults. The test code I used was straightforward with no requirements for special linker configuration. I didn't have any issues with MPLAB or CrossStudio.

Reply to
sodaant

I actually steer clear of the managed make all together, and use standard makefiles.

--
Regards,
Richard.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
FreeRTOS.org

If I decide to use the AVR32 in my project, I'll go ahead and write proper makefiles, but I didn't want to bother just for an evaluation.

I can't see why the project builder doesn't use a more sensible scheme, such as building files in alphabetical order by filename

Reply to
sodaant

Why don't you just ignore the IDE and write a makefile, using GNU make? Then you are just using the command line components, and all should be clear.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Because, unlike Winders, it is reliable and consistent. Much better suited for programmers. Winders is designed for the newbie idiots and/or teen-age game players. Most Winders users don't even know how to get to a command line window.

Please don't remove attribution lines. Those are the initial "Joe wrote:" lines, which identify the authors of various levels of quotes.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

I'm not a rabid fan of either Windows or Linux. I use both and like them equally as they each have their strong points.

I do object, however, to what seems like petty criticism of Windows by Linux fans. You know the type--they use cute names such as "Winders" and "Windoze" for the object of their scorn. Much like kids calling each other names on the playground. Nah nah nah nah nah nah my OS is better than yours!

As a longtime Windows user, I find it to be reliable and consistent. I haven't seen a BSOD in over ten years, and that was due to a poorly written 3Com NIC driver. As for consistency, I'd give the nod to Windows. Linus comes in so many flavors and with so many interfaces (KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Icebox, etc.) that one can hardly call it consistent. The same can be said about Windows kernel internals, which seem more stable than, e.g., Linux with its scheduler-of-the-month, etc.

Reply to
sodaant

What kind of grotesque implementation is this? Are they loading everything on the hard drive into memory just to have some ballast?

Reply to
Everett M. Greene

I fully agree with this. The Windows _NT_ 3.x series was a nice and reliable OS running on quite cheap hardware.

The Microsoft reputation was spoiled by the unreliable MS-DOS/16 bit Windows operating systems and the Windows 9x versions were not much better.

For embedded projects, studying the internals of the RSX-11 operating system family might give some useful hints, instead of copying everything from unix/linux.

Paul

Reply to
Paul Keinanen

Even Win2K wasn't too bad. XP was definitely a step down, and Vista is a leap off a cliff.

Exactly. None of the 16-bit stuff past about DOS 3.x was worth the cost of the floppies it came on.

FWIW, the reference to Linux above was in reference to a firmware development host system, not for an embedded target system.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Quick, sing me the
                                  at               BUDAPEST NATIONAL ANTHEM!!
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

The above statement means that Eclipse will be slow on a machine with only 512 MB of SDRAM, but it might be acceptable with 1 GB memory. A lot of that GB is used by other things like Windows.

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ulf Samuelsson

I am tired of hearing the baseless complaints of linux zealots about DOS/Windows. DOS was pretty much bare bone hardware; there is nothing that could be good or bad about it: everything is in the hands of the programmer. The Win16 API was illogical, unforgiving and difficult to program; however with enough care one could develop perfectly working applications. Win32 API is just fine; don't know why did they add .Net to it. NT->Win2k->WinXP is the path of small useful improvements in the core functionality. Vista is an attempt to do several things in the straight way without been burdened with legacy compatibility. With bells, whistles and stupidity turned off, Vista works just fine.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

DOS was mostly fine within its limits. It didn't claim to do much, and it didn't do much.

The Win32 API is also illogical - for any given feature, there are often dozens of ways to do it, all with slightly different bugs, corner cases, or undocumented features, all of which are different depending on the variety of the Win32 API (such as Win9x or WinNT). But it's not the API that is the root cause of windows' main problems (such as security and stability). These are more down to the design philosophy of Windows being basically a single-user, single-task, stand-alone system (like DOS was), with multi-user, multi-tasking and networking being addons, and with a consistent emphasis on ease-of-use and performance above all other considerations.

I have written applications that run on Win3.1 which have run continuously, in use all day every day, for years without so much as a reboot. You couldn't possibly do that with Win95, and you'd be hard pushed to do so with newer windows versions - NT 3.51 was a peak for windows reliability.

They added .Net because Sun wouldn't let them control Java. You can well argue that .Net and/or C# is technically better than Java (I don't know enough details to argue either way) - it certainly should be, having come after Java. But it's existence is purely a matter of control.

NT -> W2K -> XP certainly have a number of small and useful improvements, but each generation got more bloated and buggier (these are somewhat related), and not all changes are for the better. Roughly speaking, they made some easy tasks easier, but some harder or rarer tasks harder. On balance, however, I prefer W2K to NT4, and XP marginally over W2K if I'm using the machine a lot (for simple tasks or more dedicated machines, W2K is simpler and easier).

My experience with Vista is not extensive, but from what I've seen, I just don't see the point. When you turn off the bells and whistles until it looks and acts much like XP, it is much the same as XP apart from the memory and processor requirements.

Reply to
David Brown

... snip ...

I suspect that you would say the same about Linux if you simply stuck to one distribution. The fundamental faults are generally concerned with applications. Windows does not have a good means of mounting dangerous applications, and thus cannot easily isolate applications from the OS. It also costs considerably more, and it is much harder to acquire source code. :-)

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

That may be true for the 16-bit versions of Windows (Win 3.1, 95, 98, etc.), but Windows NT was designed from the ground up (by David Cutler, the designer of VAX/VMS, among other OSes) to be multi-tasking and with a modern (TCP/IP) networking stack.

Reply to
sodaant

What do you mean Windows can't easily isolate applications from the OS? Sure it can--it uses essentially the same hardware paging and memory protection mechanisms that Linux does. Newer versions support data execution protection and other means to protect against malicious programs.

Reply to
sodaant

Q: What are the alternatives of Linux? Is Windows the only one? A: There are many members in the *nix family. Windows is not a member (despite of what BG has told: "NT is one kind of Unix") there so it cannot be a alternative for another Unix

Finally the question is whether (the not so well known) "Bill" (Joy) and his followers were/are better in opsys'es than Linus and his followers... (During the 14 years I have used Linux, it hasn't yet becomen clear how on earth Linux is different from the Unices I had used earlier and have used lately... Ok, Linux uses GNU tools from the beginning, commercial Unices needded one to install them)

Can one build GCC, fit apps, etc. in a system which has only 32 MB RAM, and uses :

  1. Linux
  2. one of those *BSD systems (NetBSD, OpenBSD,...)

I myself have not done much Linux vs BSD comparisons, only seen that installing "current" Linuces into a old Pentium PC with 64 MB RAM will not succeed very well but putting the current NetBSD, OpenBSD and maybe even that "GUI'ish" FreeBSD distro should work ok...

The glibc usually used in Linuces seem to be a horrible monster, so those "embedded Linuces" really don't use it but the uClibc... But finding popular Linuces for PCs which use uClibc seems to be hard. Producing static apps with glibc seems to result app sizes which are

10 or more times bigger than the same apps on a BSD-system or on some old SVR3/4 PC-Unix system. A static "Hello World" on Linux may be 16 kbytes on a BSD system but 400 kbytes on Linux... How bit the installed shared libs in Linux/glibc, Linux/uClibc and in a NetBSD system would be, could be an interesting comparison...

Let's borrow ones opinion from 10 years back :

----------------------- clip ------------------------------------- From: Ignatios Souvatzis snipped-for-privacy@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet Subject: [comp.unix.advocacy] Any good comparison of Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/Hurd? Followup-To: alt.humor.best-of-usenet.d Date: 20 Jan 1998 09:17:03 -0700

BSD was designed by the government to be a really good OS, because AT&T can't program worth a darn.

Jordan Hubbard pointed out the differences between them, but it's often just a matter of style, a preference for taste:

Linux is Kaustkian socialist; Hurd is Menshevik; FreeBSD is Trotskyist; OpenBSD is Leninist; NetBSD is Maoist.

Hope this helps.

----------------------- clip -------------------------------------

Reply to
Willem van der Ruuppendorff

I can see you've bought into the "Dave Cutler designed VMS, Dave Cutler designed NT, ergo NT is a type of VMS" myth. Dave Cutler was heavily involved in the design of VMS, and no doubt knows a great deal about good operating system design. But he did *not* have a free reign to make NT as some sort of ideal operating system - he had the job of leading the design team for *windows* NT. Thus he had a lot of influence on the design of the NT kernel - and there is no doubt that it is far superior to that of non-NT windows - but the system was still Windows, based on Windows design philosophies.

So he put a lot of effort into the kernel, and made a fairly solid kernel (though not quite as originally envisioned - such is life in most software projects). And on top of that, Microsoft wanted people to see Windows.

The kernel was not bad for multi-tasking, and had some reasonable security to start with - and then lost a lot of its elegance and reliability through things like integration with the Windows gui (in Cutler's vision, the gui was separate and replaceable, just like in

*nix, since he understood it to be a major weak point).

Thus you have a kernel designed for multi-tasking, but a gui and the rest of the system designed around the idea of a single user working on a single task. And each generation of NT (up to XP at least) has taken it further from Cutler's ideas as MS has moved user and gui features from the Win9x line into the NT line.

Reply to
David Brown

In 32 bit console mode applications could be written, without using any Win16 style GUI constructs. The GUI was more or less an add on in WinNT 3.x, even the display driver was in user mode.

In NT 4, the display driver was moved into kernel mode. In the initial released version, you could crash the whole system in some cases by passing a null-pointer to a kernel mode display service :-).

Anybody writing any kernel mode routines callable from the user mode, the first thing is to validate the parameters that they were accessible from the user mode, before doing anything else.

Paul

Reply to
Paul Keinanen

How much is used by Eclipse? You seemed to be saying in the earlier posting that Eclipse itself uses 1 Gbyte or more.

Reply to
Everett M. Greene

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.