IDE for Atmel ARM processor - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: IDE for Atmel ARM processor

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Can you make up your mind - once they facing costly porting process and
12 hours later they halve the code just by recompiling... Am I missing

Re: IDE for Atmel ARM processor

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's hard to believe this, all our tests show that GCC produces almost
same or little bigger code size than the commercial compilers in most
of the cases. There are specific situations where GCC produces same or
less sized code, there are others when GCC produces bigger code -
everything depend on how much time you have spent to learn how your
compiler assembly your code, where it puts the function parameters,
how it compiles "case" and "if" statements etc. and to know where what
to use.
I'm not so good assembly writer as assembly needs you to be quite
focused when you write or you easily shoot your leg, but few years ago
I had to write CRC code for AVR assembler, then out of couriousity
re-wrote the same on C and compiled with AVR GCC - it made the code
1/2 size than my original assembly code(!).
On top of this in some commercial compilers when you put the highest
optimization possible your code will stop work or start behave weird
;) so you should use the optimization with extra care (!) and spent
more time on testing.

So bottom line is that GCC is doing just fine, but I can't say that
there is decent ARM debugger on the market though which to work
flawless in Windows environment (or I do asking too much ... ;)

Best regards
PCB prototypes for $26 at
( )
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: IDE for Atmel ARM processor

Quoted text here. Click to load it

On which architecture? GCC is embarassingly behind the best commercial
compilers, especially on ARM, and it is questionable whether it could ever
reduce the gap. My figures show it is at least 8 years behind state of the art -
the code the latest GCC produces for Thumb is worse than that of 8+ year old
ARM compilers, and Thumb code produced by GCC is *larger* than ARM
code produced by the ARM compiler... Performance is about as bad as its

So I can believe halving the code is quite feasible - you can save about
30% in the compiler, and the rest is likely due to the libraries.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You should not need to change your code to suit your compiler - a good
compiler can produce high quality code from any source, whether good
or bad. Of course well-written source will produce good code on any

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is not true in general. In many compilers all (or most) optimizations
are enabled by default - there is no point in adding optimizations if you
then don't enable them! Many of the problems with optimizations are
caused by programmers writing illegal C/C++ and expecting the compiler
to not break their program. Any optimizations that go beyond the standard
(eg. assume no aliasing) are typically well documented, and are only for
programmers who know what they are doing.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

GCC is just fine if you don't require the best compiler. You get what
you pay for - it's that simple.


Re: IDE for Atmel ARM processor
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would like to point out that the OP's message was dated on the 8th and
didn't start to get any responses until mine (13th).

While your points maybe valid, it might have been more useful if you
attempted to answer the questions asked (by the OP) instead of providing
a sales pitch on why GNU tools may not be the best choice.

I at least attempted to answer some of his questions, I mentioned a
compiler he COULD use (and it's up-front cost) and a potential IDE.

What compilers did you actually mention?  Where is the associated cost?  
Where did you talk about this compilers  speed of execution compared to
another product?


Site Timeline