Wow. That hurts a little. No one quite said that in the 12+ years we have been in business. We tend to look at it as friendly neighbor mom and pop compiler company. We offer features that we deem are good and provide excellent support. We even offer things that are "hard to do," like the first whole program code compression commercial embedded C compiler and now global optimizations. We have 10,000+ of satisified customers across multiple CPU families. We are one of the few remaining compiler companies in US, so I guess we are doing OK.
Good point - I have to agree with you that time is worth a lot more than some savings in the upfront cost of development tools. But the Wiggler was only an example and Rowley (Like Keil or others) have their own high speed debugging interface. Still using Rowley Crossworks the Wiggler is a good product because it is the only product I know of where it works reliable and has a tight integration.
Why - Can you provide some evidence for this claim that GCC is not suitable for embedded use in general?
That depends - But clearly the choice of the desktop operating system does not belong to this group. Again could you provide some evidence for you 90% claim. For example look at the 2005 survery at embedded.com [1]. Or do you mean embedded systems in use?
I think choice of desktop system has some important. Some may think the reasoning a bit tenuous, but with a greater percentage of embedded systems moving over to Linux, then using Linux as your host is a very good start before jumping into a project where embedded linux is your target. Then, you can get to know various aspects about linux, (file permissions, device nodes, nfs, make etc), before the time comes when you need those skills in an embedded linux project.
And of course Linux is a very solid development host anyway, with great support for development activities. I really can't think of a reason why using Linux as a development host is a bad idea anyway.
So I would indeed advocate Linux as a host (even though I use Windows for a lot of development activities), and I wouldn't discourage people to use gcc either, given that gcc could well play a bigger part in the future that it plays now. Take a look at avr32. IIRC, Atmel talks about gcc before iar in their literature, for a processor which looks to have a very bright future. Is this a clue to which way the tide is turning?
I recently ported FreeRTOS.org to PIC24 and dsPIC and was surprised to find that their C30 compiler was in fact ....... GCC. Makes a better job of it than the C18 compiler no doubt.
Yep. I think if someone tells you not to use Linux or gcc, check their trousers and shoes. If they are flares and platforms, don't believe them - they're stuck in the past ;-)
You are right - Linux as a desktop OS matters when you work with Embedded Linux you will already have some knowledge. I just didn't want to discuss this never ending issue about the war on desktop operating systems and there are also other alternative for Windows (Connecting to a development host, Using Cygwin, ...)
I added the Linux Platform as a plus point for Rowley Crossworks to my lust because at least at my university the Embedded Systems Lab uses Linux hosts for development. I don't know the rationale behind it but I think it has to do with cost and technical decisions.
I am a supporter of GCC as embedded platform and added this as a plus point for Rowley Crossworks. Maybe my point got lost in my last email. I had good experience with code size and speed on GCC based toolchains (ARM, Coldfire, AVR). Where other tools are superior than GCC (at least on the MSP430) are floating point support. Recently we had a project where we only had left a few bytes of Flash on a MSP430 target and then tried different compilers. IAR produced the smallest code and saved about 7K code. Integer nearly was the same between different compilers.
Of course list - Looking up the word in the dictionary is somewhat funny for a non native english speaker. I already see this hanging around in Rowley offices as a new joke *g*.
I did't want to be rude, but I really think you should improve on the webpage. As a matter of fact, the FIRST impresison anyone gets from your company nowadays is quite likely through visiting your webpage.Of course your website's quality has nothing to do with with the quality of your products (you can have a great wonderful page while your products are just a p.o.s. or vice versa), however when visiting a website you don't conciously *think* along those lines, but it's rather like your great, massively parallel superocmputer in your head will automatically generate all the prejudices you need in the background :) What really puts me off, and doesn't really qualify as "professional" (actually hard to define) in my book is on the first page, the first thing I've to read: "Lastly, proof that we must be doing a good job: Our competitors are spreading FUD about us with manipulated "benchmarks" and "feature comparisons." Perhaps the last gasp of the dinosaurs? " Woohoo that's quite sth. to write on your frontpage. It's not about the content in itself, but much more about the wording. The akronym "FUD" might come in handy in a Linux/Microsoft flamefest, but putting it on the frontpage of your company's website? The same goes for your response. It's ok to discuss the benchmark in question from your point of view, but again I think the form is quite suboptimal. I mean, compare this with IAR's comparison here:
formatting link
It's not comprehensive or perhaps even fair by any means, but the style is much more factual. Some serious looking diagrams showing that IAR just rocks. If this were a presentation on your website, I would probably read something like:
Whoa, and look what a piece o' sh** this so called professional compiler Keil is, even worse than free hobbyist GCC" . All that aside, personally I might decide to buy software from you. If I post/search in groups, and there are people praising how great your software really is I'd buy it regardless of your webdesign. However I am absolutely sure that in this case, where I just have to suggest software to my bosses, they'd never buy a single license from you after visiting your page. I could give long talks, presentations or dance choreographies just to show them how great your software is. They would just say "No,no,no we need sth. professional". That being said, if noone told you in the last 12+ years, I might just be overly sensitive. However, I am quite sure that there were some people who felt the same as I do, just they didn't tell you but instead went on and bought from the competition. By no means I intend to offend you with this post (it is not so easy for me to express my intentions up the point since english is not my native language). I just want to explain how it came to that rather brusque phrasing in my last post.
I've just had a glance myself and I'm forced to agree with Sebastian. Now, I quite like it and it has a nice ma and pa feel about it and some entertaining irreverence but, from management's point of view it is not consistent with similar sites and would make them very uneasy. I also notice that the news page has been under construction since 2002. Yikes! You mean there has been no news in 4 years?
In my highly humble opinion I would have a bit more of a generic off the shelf products/support/contact/press style of menu for appeasing the managers and then have this friendly style of site within it in a developers area where the lighter tone will be appreciated and management won't go.
However, I'm on shakey ground because my lots' website is dreadful. I can't complain too loudly though in case it turns out that it is my job to update it!
That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers. What does that mean? There is no qualification here. How do you quantify "Industry Standard". If it's "as used by Industry At Large" then you are surely wrong.
And how come so all of our customers are using it for embedded use? I mean, it's not like we hide the fact we bundle GCC for ARM. They're not duped into believing it's our own compiler (but MSP430, AVR, and MAXQ is another matter, those are our own). We also have the requisite rollcall of big names using our software in preference to other offerings, it's not like we go hungry at the end of the month.
Gee, how many commodity routers and wireless boxes have embedded Linux inside them compiled with GCC? All those ARM and MIPS processors running on ropey old GNU and Linux software, my goodness, must be a nightmare! I suppose you ripped out your router's firmware and replaced it with a homegrown effort compiled with the Greenhills compiler to feel safer?
Don't ever use a TomTom GO to figure out where your next sales meeting is because, shock horror, it has Linux inside it! Don't use that Qtopia Greenphone! And don't use a Zaurus or your world will fall apart.
Get a real-world perspective. GCC is used a lot in the embedded world and is just as much "Industry Standard(tm)" as IAR or Keil/ADS. It surely has a wider audience and user base.
He's talking about the host platform, not the target platform. We support Linux as a Host OS, not a target OS. Your comment has no relevance other than to show you are not familiar with our products.
I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a reseller of those products. :-)
I guess Altera and Xilinx, who spend vast amounts of time and money on development of their software tools (probably comparable to what they spend on development of their devices) must be targeting their soft processors for use in desktops or servers. And companies like Microchip and Axis and all the other microcontroller manufacturers who have made gcc backends for their devices are really targeting non-embedded usage.
It is certainly true that gcc is not the best choice in all cases, but only a fanatic would dismiss gcc outright, especially when backed by a commercial support contract. And when looking at multiple target toolchains, I think the only competitor gcc might have in the number of targets supported is IAR - it is certainly as much of an industry standard as anything else. Just to give you a hint - Intel and Metrowerks, to give two examples, specifically support gcc command line options and language extensions.
"Works on Linux" was referring to linux as the host, not as a target operating system. But as a target operating system for ARM devices, linux (or ucLinux for devices without an MMU) is a very popular choice.
There is a big difference here. You have been dismissing gcc out of hand, without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you have even tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias (I know people can follow the links in your sig.). Paul has been advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, and saying why gcc is a suitable choice in industry.
I don't sell or resell tools, so I'm not biased. Get the best tool for the job - and that depends on both the job and who's doing it. But I'd rather see a discussion with useful information and reasoning - we all benefit from it (maybe I'll have to use ARM tools one day, or recommend them to a customer). I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website looks too cheerful, and I don't like to seem them dismissed because they are gcc (no other reason has been given). If tools like IAR and Keil are so much better, then surely you can come up with better reasons than telling us they are not quite as vastly expensive as they seem, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. The only positive thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is significant, but not decisive).
I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger.
Fair enough. However there is a tendency for GCC advocates to automatically dismiss any criticism of Gcc that comes from anyone who is involved in anyway with any commercial compiler. Though they don't accept the argument in reverse.
That does not hold true. You are assuming the only bias is from those who sell tools. See my last comment.
I agree.
I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses etc :-) Rowley are compiler developers not web designers. However the comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as constructive criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to his management. .
I was dismissing Gcc not Rowley per-say. Rowley do a very good MSP430 compiler
Many people have done that. I recall a whole lot of benchmarks put up but they were all dismissed because they came from commercial sources. The only benchmarks the Gcc supporters would except were the ones that showed Gcc was as good as all the commercial compilers and ignored the fact that the benchmarks were from a commercial company that provided Gcc (no it wasn't Rowley)
The reaction I have had from inside several compiler companies is you can't reason with religion.
They are not expensive. You are using a distorted benchmark. The IAR and Keil compilers are slightly on the higher side of the average for compilers. You are basing your "average" on one compiler at one end of the price distribution. Or should we judge all cars on the price of a Trabant?
I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits etc but then it degenerates in the fact that the industry standard test suits cost money... and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) There is no level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue with religion.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Tell me where I advocate purchasing our tools in my posting? Or where I suggested not to purchase IAR/Keil/ADS? I commented that dismissing GCC out of hand for embedded work just shows how out of touch you actually are. I didn't denegrate any other compiler vendor. I might dislike some particular practice or benchmark presentation, but I happen to be in regular contact with competitor tool companies for vaious reasons.
A product is more than a compiler, and a business is more than its products. IDE, library, support, it's a mix, and above all, fairness in the way we deal with customers, suppliers, partners, and competitors.
If you are refering to the comments made elsewhere in this thread then the comments were in relation to the Imagecraft website - although I've just looked at Rowley's site and it has dramatically changed so I have no opinion on it yet. Your site is fine too but I do think your slightly-suprised-to-have-the-photo-taken portrait could perhaps do with a revamp ;-)
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.