PIC development on Linux

OK. FINE. Be that way.

The board is laid out using an LPC811M001JDH16. My BOM cost goal, in qty

10, was $5. It's below that, even if I buy boards at $1.66 per square inch from OshPark (it's a little circuit, both in schematic and in actual size).

As soon as I verify that OpenOCD works with the part (it doesn't look like version 0.7 does, but I have high hopes for version 0.8), I'll send stuff off to the board house.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott
Loading thread data ...

I would like to see OpenOCD work at all.

Please share your results.

hamilton

Reply to
hamilton

I've been using it since at least 2008 for my projects, and 2011 on behalf of my customers. There's always been the usual underlying irritation with development tools of getting everything to play nice together, but I've never failed to get it to work.

I'm using OpenOCD with ARM Cortex cored processors (M0, M3 & M4) from ST and Luminary, using Eclipse as my IDE talking to GDB for integrated debugging, all under Linux.

One of my current customers takes the code that I develop on this Linux machine, compiles it under Cygwin on Windows, and loads it using OpenOCD, again on Windows.

I love it. It has tried to let me down once or twice, but I've been stern with it, and it has relented every time.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

That's fair enough - for some people, and for some uses, a PIC will be more convenient and easier to use than a Cortex device. So you use it because it saves you time and effort.

My argument is against picking a PIC to save a few cents on the chip - not against picking a PIC because you know it is the best device for the job, or because you know it will save you time, effort and money.

(I also particularly dislike the PIC as a processor, and I dislike the tools and being unable to program them in normal C - but that's a personal bias rather than a sound economic argument.)

Reply to
David Brown

OpenOCD 0.8.0 has a number of new features, and of course supports even more devices. There are also good Windows builds, and the it's easy to install the Windows drivers (at least for FTDI-based dongles - I haven't tried any others). No cygwin in sight.

The only trouble I have with it is that currently mass erase is not working on Kinetis Kxx chips, but I hope that will get sorted soon.

I haven't used OpenOCD much for debugging yet, but I use it to program some K10's.

I avoid cygwin like the plague - ming based toolchains (and other software) are faster, avoid the cygwin1.dll pains, and work better with windows-style filenames.

Have you tried clang for compilation, or just gcc? I gather ARM has dropped Keil as the compiler for the ADS and is moving to clang.

Reply to
David Brown

Cygwin is just there so that the makefiles will work right.

Never heard of it. gcc works fine for me.

--
Tim Wescott 
Control system and signal processing consulting 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

(This is getting a bit off topic...)

I left cygwin behind many years ago, for the mingw version of gcc and msys to provide the basic command-line utilities needed to make Windows look more like a real system. It is not quite as posix-compliant as cygwin, but the utilities like sed, cp, rm, touch, etc., are /much/ faster than those in cygwin - making your makefiles faster.

clang is the C (and C++) compiler part of LLVM, which is the other big open source compiler suite. I haven't used clang myself - I haven't had time - but I always like to keep track of these things. Certainly the competition, cooperation and comparisons between gcc and clang have lead to a number of big improvements in both tools (the success of llvm has pushed gcc to get link-time optimisation into mainstream usage, improved its error and warning handling especially for C++, and encouraged plugins).

Reply to
David Brown

No, that's just good common sense. ;)

--
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I feel like I am 
                                  at               sharing a ``CORN-DOG'' 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

I'm amused, because when I have my "Software Engineer" hat on, that's exactly my attitude. When I have my "Circuit Designer" hat on, my response to the PIC is "Hot Damn!". Ditto when I have my "buyer" hat on.

It can be interesting to sit there alone in a quiet room and listen to the inter-departmental wars going on inside my head. I used to get involved with these when I worked in industry, and was just disgusted all around because it all seemed like pointless turf battles. Now that I've had more than a few of these struggles happen internally, I have more sympathy for all the participants when it happens in a big company.

--
Tim Wescott 
Control system and signal processing consulting 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

I usually have my "software engineer" hat on, and sometimes my "IT manager" hat. My "circuit engineer" hat sits on the shelf most of the time, and I don't think I have a "buyer" hat at all. Of course, sometimes I have to were my "salesman" hat and listen to customers who really want an 8051 device...

I can appreciate that. And I understand that the popularity of PICs is not just down to DIP packages and good marketing. But I like my "software engineer" hat, and don't like PICs :-)

Reply to
David Brown

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.