So if I can summarize this argument: "Yes, working with this core is like jumping through blazing hoops but, really, they're not blazing quite as vigorously as it appears from a distance, and you'd be surprised at just how much pain a human can endure before blacking out".
Um, yes. Pretty much all of the RTOSes I've ever seen?
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! An air of FRENCH at FRIES permeates my visi.com nostrils!!
You seem to have already plenty of responses.
Why I'm thinking of the core being obsolete? After using the 80186's for nearly 20 years successfully, many of my customers had to change the processor, as the chip manufacturers announced EOL for the parts.
Though it may be OT: After 2 years of search for a replacement, I found the Atmel AT91 series ARMs with functionality covering well that of an 80186.
As an example: Porting the software of a real-time controller with 40 kbytes of 80186 code to the ARM took a week, as both were programmed with C without ant dirty tricks used. Surprisingly, the code size was about the same (40064 bytes vs. 40036 bytes). The compilers used were Borland C v. 4.5 and GCC v. 3.2.1 in Thumb mode.
Even as I used the 8086 family chips from the very beginning (I still have one in engineering sample 8088's), I definitely advise against making any new designs based on a plain 16 bit 80x86.
Please think that for a successful embedded product used in any non-consumer use, the parts should be available for 15 to 20 years from the design.
-- Tauno Voipio tauno voipio (at) iki fi
I see. Well, it has not been such a bad CPU for its times.
I admit, I was impressed by amount of peripherals Lantronix stuffed onto their chip, so I may be biased. (Impressed not realy by the core but by those 2x CAN channels, 2x Ethernet channels, 4x UART and other goodies on DSTni-EX).
Quite good point.
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.