Open Source simulator for 8051 microcontroller

I downloaded this some time ago because I am trying to do 8051 development under linux and a simulator would be a very usefull tool. However, a command line simulator is not very productive so a gui based one would be much better. Also support for a wide range of 8051 variants would be necessary and the ability to simulate simple external hardware like switches and LCDs would be good.

HTH

Ian

Hi, there must be a million of these around already. You could spend more time trying these out than developing your code.

Really? Can you point me to one with a GUI??

Ian

Hi, well i havent looked since i dont need 1. But how does a GUI make much difference to someone who can type?

Little or none, but it makes a helluva lot of difference to one who can SEE.

Ian

-- Charlie Brej APT Group, Dept. Computer Science, University of Manchester Web:

that's just off the top of my head.

sorry I just realised you wanted open source... the're not open source. Why do you want an open source one anyway?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org

Ever thought of how much time it'll cost to download all these million ;-) And then I'm not even talking of bouncing against the limitations of each of the simulators. Besides all that, one of the best ways to learn a processor is to write a simulator. Enough reasons to write your own code (for everything you need).

Stef Mientki

Because I don't run windows.

Ian

that didn't answer the question

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org

It almost did.

The micro tool vendors have been slow as molasses in January at supporting non-MS platforms.

In article , Bryan Hackney writes

This is because there is little money in it. I have discussed this with several tool vendors. IT goes something like this (these are not my views but the reasons given to me)

2 open source == transparent code

Therefore I will spend a lot of time, money and effort developing an open source product that no one will pay money for and my competitors can copy my techniques.

There is also the catch 22 "90% of professional developers use MS Windows. 9% use Unix and pay for tools, only 1% use Linux. (the other lot using linux are students and hobby people) so there is no market.

This is true. BUT the majority use windows because the tools are only available on windows. why? read para above again....

I don't know when it will break out of the circle and "mainstream" commercial embedded tools will become available on Linux but they will never be open source. Nice as the GNu & FSF is the world is commercial. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org

time

I definitely agree with you. (thanks for supporting my case,Stef!!!)I did not write the simulator to compete with some commercially available one, of which there are sevaral ones in the market today.

What made me write this piece of software was my drive to learn about the 8051 microcontroller in depth and I am sure I am in a better position now after writing that simulator than I would have been if i had not written it.

Previously my simulator could run only in the DOS environment.Since then a lot has changed. I have added almost all possible support to my simulator as well as I have come up with an assembler to complement my simulator, which sadly is still in its pre-release state due to serious lack of time. In fact that also happens to be one of the reasons that I have posted about it here. I hope to get help from people in completing as soon as possible after this post.

I would also like to add that it was Mr. Chris Hills himself that who inspired me to continue with my work of improving the simulator. He told me the story of Mr. Keil and that inspired me to take up porting my software to the Linux platform.

Thank you sirs, for inspiring me... regards, Seemanta Dutta

Quite right but I think it was someone else who said they wanted open source. I just want something to run on Linux. The only commercial 8051 suite I know that runs on Linux is by Tasking and they want £1400 for it.

Ian

I did not mention open source. I'm a linux user and I spend a lot of money.

Right. Many companies are not set up to complete with an open product. Some are, and some are sucessful. That's OK.

The core technologies - cc, as, and ld, are fairly easy to port to any OS in the world. The graphical interfaces may be a little trouble for some. And I did not mention open source.

These numbers sound like ECAD numbers from about 1994 - but I can't say. I do not believe 9% of embedded developers use Unix - that sounds way off. I'd guess closer to 0%. About the same for Mac and VMS.

And students and hobbiest are some of the professional developers of tomorrow - some vendors know to treat them fairly well.

Well, I have Windows XP on a notebook computer for running Keil compiler and a flash utility - period. So I guess I'm one of those 90%. I have never edited a source file using the Keil IDE.

We ship many dollars per year of Linux based machines. The fact that I have to run Keil on a notebook used soley for that purpose does not bother me much. But I would much rather have Keil on a linux workstation.

I'm not an advocate for desktop Linux - I could care less. I use it almost exclusively, but I don't recommend that anyone else does.

But unix is really an engineer's OS, where Windows is supposed to be a grandmother's OS, and I find it to be opaque, very limiting, and often bizarre. I don't think I would be in this business if I had to develop software for Windows, especially software for machine control.

I would posit that the existence of GCC is fueling much more $$ of development than the opportunity costs of some vendors not being able to sell compilers for the targets that GCC supports. And this is an unintended consequence.

The founding goal of GCC is to protect us against these software vendors.

When the best-of-breed micro tools are free (if that ever happens), there will still be plenty of work to go around (I hope), just maybe not in selling compilers.

In article , Bryan Hackney writes

The title of this thread is:-

Open Source simulator for 8051 microcontroller

This is true though there are some portable GUI front tends.

A lot of comms, the heavy weight end, not the mobiles, use PPC and Unix.

I do.

I know. I have discussed this with Keil several times. the problem is, as you pointed out, the GUI is not easily portable.

Fair enough. I know a couple of developers who don't have any M$ in any form in the company.

I can't comment. whilst I have developed under Solaris and sunos I have never written a windows program.

I can sympathise.

Regards Chris

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org

In article , Bryan Hackney writes

It has failed miserably.

That will never happen.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ snipped-for-privacy@phaedsys.org

Chuckle :)

Never is a long time. But other than for my convenience, I don't really care.

It's nice to see free tools become usable, stable, and ultimately better in some respects than commercial ones. It frees up resources that can be used elsewhere.