[<<] [<] Page 2 of 2 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils development
From: "David Barnett" ####@####.#### Date: 13 Nov 2008 20:15:27 -0000 Message-Id: <4d52f78b0811131215m2e69289fv29e686544399d4f@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Vaclav Peroutka ####@####.#### wrote: > > gpsim is ok. > Yes, ok. I don't use gpsim too much. Maybe somebody can clarify - can I > simulate the code written in C-language compiled with SDCC ? Last I heard, you can't step through C lines. That's why gpsim always prints "FIXME: HLL files are not supported at the moment" on the terminal. BTW Xiaofan, I think gputils could help with some problems that seem like they're SDCC-only. For instance, a lot of people hesitate to use C because of the code bloat, and SDCC doesn't do a ton of optimization compared to the alternatives, but some link-time optimizations could really cut down on the bloat. David | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils development
From: "Xiaofan Chen" ####@####.#### Date: 14 Nov 2008 05:37:43 -0000 Message-Id: <a276da400811132136n678e34f1v73d5fcde55c46c63@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:15 AM, David Barnett ####@####.#### wrote: > BTW Xiaofan, I think gputils could help with some problems that seem like > they're SDCC-only. For instance, a lot of people hesitate to use C because > of the code bloat, and SDCC doesn't do a ton of optimization compared to the > alternatives, but some link-time optimizations could really cut down on the > bloat. That is a good idea. But IMHO Microchip has other ideas about this topic. They are working on LLVM port. In fact, LLVM 2.4 has experimental PIC16 ports. http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Check out LLVM mailing lists and you will know that several Microchip employees are working on the PIC16 port. Xiaofan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils development
From: "David Barnett" ####@####.#### Date: 14 Nov 2008 13:59:36 -0000 Message-Id: <4d52f78b0811140559p5aa9128brd074fafcbd11dea@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen ####@####.#### wrote: > That is a good idea. But IMHO Microchip has other ideas about > this topic. They are working on LLVM port. In fact, LLVM 2.4 > has experimental PIC16 ports. > <http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html> I had noticed that. Link-time optimization is one of the big advantages of LLVM. I seem to remember some users suggesting that SDCC use LLVM when I followed their mailing list. I've been wondering how gputils can take advantage of LLVM. It seems like the LLVM architecture would be an alternative to most of gputils, minus a PIC14 backend. But I wonder how much LLVM could help with the limited call stack and pages/banks on the mid-range PICs. I've always been interested in offloading runtime work into a smarter toolchain instead of the software developer. David | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils development
From: "Xiaofan Chen" ####@####.#### Date: 16 Nov 2008 10:13:18 -0000 Message-Id: <a276da400811160213p68d53c32h69cc553d266a8c35@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:15 AM, David Barnett ####@####.#### wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Vaclav Peroutka ####@####.#### wrote: > >> > gpsim is ok. >> Yes, ok. I don't use gpsim too much. Maybe somebody can clarify - can I >> simulate the code written in C-language compiled with SDCC ? > > Last I heard, you can't step through C lines. That's why gpsim always prints > "FIXME: HLL files are not supported at the moment" on the terminal. Yeah that is an important missing feature. I do not use gpsim that much either. But it is quite unique in the sense that it can simulate a system. MPSIM does not simulate a system. KTechlab is another interesting one. It would be nice to see gpsim and Ktechlab getting more matured. In the Windows world, it seems quite some people are using Proteus VSM (they have a MPLAB plugin). I have not used it but it seems to be quite capable (it is even able to simulate USB function). Xiaofan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils development
From: "Xiaofan Chen" ####@####.#### Date: 16 Nov 2008 10:19:24 -0000 Message-Id: <a276da400811160219ge6f22c4m998fdad19de848e@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Vaclav Peroutka ####@####.#### wrote: >> Piklab is not moving. > I never used it It is a nice IDE and supported quite some compilers and programmers. It has also limited support of ICD 2 debugging. http://piklab.sourceforge.net/index.php >> pk2cmd works fine. > That is true. But I really miss chip autodetection mechanism > similar to Windows' PicKit2 programmer. And I do not know how > to show revision of the PIC. Maybe nice-to-have: automatically > show ID and revision of the target PIC every time pk2cmd is run. Future pk2 from Jeff Post may have features. On the other hand, you can put your feature request for pk2cmd in this thread. The developer is very responsive. http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=260540 >> Still no good debugger support. > That is definitely true. Does ANY debugger for PIC on Linux > exist (even some bad debugger) ? Support of PicKit2 debugger will be really cool. > That is the most difficult task as Microchip does not want to open the debugging protocol. Xiaofan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 2 of 2 [>] [>>] |