From: JBarbosa <jos...@ne...> - 2008-08-30 20:41:53
|
Below is a link to the Code::Blocks site and some chunks of text from the opening page. I 'm working exclusively with Windows. SDCC is called by means of a .bat file containing the command lines, C::B allows us to set a tool to invoke that .bat and 'voila'! If your PC has more than one core, they are used, The site gives access to several foruns, one of them is dedicated to the 'nightly builds' that allows us to update C::B every day, simply by downloading it and extract the files straight to the C::B directory and thats all. http://www.codeblocks.org/ http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Main_Page "The open source, cross platform, free C++ IDE." a.. Windows 2000 / XP / Vista b.. Linux (Ubuntu & Debian, 32 & 64 bits) c.. Mac OS X 10.4+ Supported compilers a.. GNU GCC (incl. G77) (Linux) b.. MinGW GCC (incl. G77) (Win32) c.. MSP430 GCC (Win32, Linux, BSD) d.. TriCore GCC (Win32, Linux) e.. PowerPC GCC (Win32, Linux) f.. Apple GCC (Xcode) (Mac OS X) g.. Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 (Win32) h.. Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 (Win32) i.. Borland's C++ Compiler 5.5 (Win32) j.. DigitalMars C/C++ (Win32) k.. OpenWatcom (Win32) l.. Intel C++ compiler (Win32) m.. Small Device C Compiler (SDCC) n.. Digital Mars D (Win32, Linux) o.. GDC D Compiler Regards Jose Barbosa |
From: <dem...@co...> - 2008-09-04 16:37:53
|
I'm no expert in SDCC, but I use it on my WinXP box without Cygwin. Aren't most (all?) compilers command line? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Richard Erlacher" <ed...@id...> > Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a > DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by > Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? > > regards, > > Richard Erlacher > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Gray" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > > > > CYGWIN, I believe, allows some native Linux programs to run on a Windows > > machine, as WINE allows some Windows programs to run on a Linux machine. > > By > > native I mean a simple copy of the binary executable file transferred from > > one machine to the other. There may well be other shells/emulators that > > permit this kind of functionality, but these are the ones I know of. > > > > On Thursday 04 September 2008 05:41:25 Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff > >> isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. > >> > >> If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? > >> > >> Do you seen what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and what's that > >> other > >> one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> Richard Erlacher > > > > > > -- > > Richard. > > PGP Key-id: 0x5AB3D350 > > > > Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. > > -- Albert Einstein > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > > challenge > > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > > prizes > > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > > world > > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Sdcc-user mailing list > > Sdc...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-04 16:49:21
|
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:37 PM, dem...@co... wrote: > I'm no expert in SDCC, but I use it on my WinXP box without Cygwin. > > Aren't most (all?) compilers command line? I've never seen or heard of one that wasn't, except for some early Mac-based compilers. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Bobby G. <bg...@fh...> - 2008-09-04 16:55:06
|
Windows users. Go to Start> All Programs> Accessories, and right click on Command Prompt. Click on Properties, then click the Options tab. Under Display options choose Window or Full Screen. Click the shortcut tab and notice that the target in each case is one and the same 'cmd.exe'. Any questions? Why would any compiler ever run in a window? Even MSDOS Quick Basic which runs in a GUI in full screen mode or in a window, has the compiler built in and it runs in the background. There is nothing to display except the output which goes to wherever its directed. Bobby dem...@co... wrote: > I'm no expert in SDCC, but I use it on my WinXP box without Cygwin. > > Aren't most (all?) compilers command line? > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "Richard Erlacher" <ed...@id...> > > > Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It > runs under a > > DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as > presented by > > Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together? > > > > regards, > > > > Richard Erlacher > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Richard Gray" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > > > > > > > CYGWIN, I believe, allows some native Linux programs to run on > a Windows > > > machine, as WINE allows some Windows programs to run on a > Linux machine. > > > By > &g t; > ; native I mean a simple copy of the binary executable > file transferred from > > > one machine to the other. There may well be other > shells/emulators that > > > permit this kind of functionality, but these are the ones I > know of. > > > > > > On Thursday 04 September 2008 05:41:25 Richard Erlacher wrote: > > >> Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY > this SDCC stuff > > >> isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program. > > >> > > >> If it requires an add-on to Windows, WHY? What does that do? > > >> > > >> Do you seen what I mean? Why is there a CYGWIN? ... and > what's that > > >> other > > >> one MINGW ... or some such? Why do those exist? > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> > > >> Richard Erlacher > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Richard. > > > PG P Key- id: 0x5AB3D350 > > > > > > Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age > eighteen. > > > -- Albert Einstein > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move > Developer's > > > challenge > > > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & > win great > > > prizes > > > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere > in the > > > world > > > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sdcc-user mailing list > > > Sdc...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.Net email is sponso red by the Moblin Your Move > Developer's challenge > > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes > > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere > in the world > > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Sdcc-user mailing list > > Sdc...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > |
From: Andrey V. <an...@ec...> - 2008-09-04 18:39:42
|
Well, it is very simple -- most Windows users do not know how compiler works (I mean what stages source come through). I work for university as Systems Analyst and I must say that very few students learn what really happens in background. Novaday every compiler is a command line program. Even Microsoft Studio has command line compilers but most programmers do not think about it. All what they see is IDE which is nothing than editor with syntax highligting, integrated help system and interface to run compiler. If you ask them what really happens when they click "Compile" or "Run" you will get wrong answer. For most IDE the sequence is next: 1. save file 2. regenerate makefile (if it required) 3. run "make" (or other equivalent) 4. "make" runs compiler 5. compiler takes for example C++ code (.cpp) 6. compiler runs preprocessor (.cpp) 7. compiler converts C++ into C (.c) 8. compiler runs C optimizer (.c) 9. compiler converts C into ASM (.asm) 10. compiler runs ASM optimizer (.asm) 11. compiler runs ASM compiler (.obj) 12. compiler runs linker (.exe/.com/.bin/.ihx/.out) But system can get even more complicated (GNU Compiler Collection) C++ -> C Objective-C -> C Pascal -> C Ada -> C Java -> C Fortran -> C C -> Assembly Assembly -> binary code Now a question "Why is it so?". And answer is simple, so that code in different languages could "cooperate". Programmer is free to choose language of his choice and his code can be reused in other programming language. Unfortunately most programmers do not use it. I heard that "Windows" is so great from students -- and my conclusion is that students play more games than they study or learn about "Windows". When I inform them that they need to set some variable they do not have a clue what I am talking about. Well, but in regard of the subject discussed here I must agree that good documentation with examples of working code with reasonably good explanation what happens "under the hood" is best help for beginer programmer. I learnt C in 1989 from "The C Programming Language" (Kernigan and Ritchie) and upto today I consider this one of the best books ever written for subject for it's own time. Other gratest book "The Art of Electronics" (Horowitz and Hill) was must read during my study. So far there is no superrior to this book (although it is not uptodate for new technologies) in form of explanation the subject. The person who started this thread had complain about documentation. I must agree that documentation could be better but by my personal opinion documentation is "good" enough to start. Same person would expect to have "commercial" quality documentation with complementary books for different MCUs. But did he took in account how much time should be put into writing documentation? Did he took in account that many people who participate in this project are live in poor countries where survival is quite difficult. Did he took in account that many people who work on this project do not speak proper English (including myself -- I am immigrant)? Does this person have any idea how difficult to start new life in new country from level zero? I believe that he is not. Nobody forces him to use SDCC. There is other commercial products available (Iar, Keil for example) which do job better than SDCC. If he is not happy with SDCC then if he can afford other commercial product go for it. I can not afford to buy other product which cost $5,000+ and I prefer to use SDCC. Sorry for long post, it is better to get back to work and do something more usefull. Andrey Bobby Garner wrote: > Windows users. Go to Start> All Programs> Accessories, and right click > on Command Prompt. Click on Properties, then click the Options tab. > Under Display options choose Window or Full Screen. Click the shortcut > tab and notice that the target in each case is one and the same > 'cmd.exe'. > > Any questions? > > Why would any compiler ever run in a window? Even MSDOS Quick Basic > which runs in a GUI in full screen mode or in a window, has the > compiler built in and it runs in the background. There is nothing to > display except the output which goes to wherever its directed. > > Bobby |
From: Arkadi S. <ar...@me...> - 2008-09-04 18:48:21
|
Andrey Vlassov wrote: > If you ask them what really happens when they click "Compile" or "Run" > you will get wrong answer. Half of what you wrote about compilation sequence is obviously wrong. If you ever going to teach people about the topic, please first make clear how it really works for yourself. > For most IDE the sequence is next: > > 1. save file > 2. regenerate makefile (if it required) > 3. run "make" (or other equivalent) > 4. "make" runs compiler > 5. compiler takes for example C++ code (.cpp) > 6. compiler runs preprocessor (.cpp) > 7. compiler converts C++ into C (.c) > 8. compiler runs C optimizer (.c) > 9. compiler converts C into ASM (.asm) > 10. compiler runs ASM optimizer (.asm) > 11. compiler runs ASM compiler (.obj) > 12. compiler runs linker (.exe/.com/.bin/.ihx/.out) > > But system can get even more complicated (GNU Compiler Collection) > > C++ -> C > Objective-C -> C > Pascal -> C > Ada -> C > Java -> C > Fortran -> C > C -> Assembly > Assembly -> binary code |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-04 20:14:26
|
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote: > Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C" > is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago. "C" was never "RTL". C has always been C. Various RTLs have come and gone as needed, typically as intermediary steps in compilation. > Now it looks like "Language Source Code" -> AST -> RTL -> RTL > optimization -> Assembly -> Linker -> Binary code. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StructureOfGCC ...for GCC perhaps. The general flow (each step of which potentially encompasses several sub-steps of a "big" portable compiler like GCC) is: source code --> preprocessor(outputs processed source code) -> compiler(outputs assembler) -> assembler(outputs relocatable binary object files) -> linker(outputs executables) --> executable file It simply amazes me that people who are involved in embedded development at any level don't know this. I guess the era of "click here to write your embedded program" has really arrived. Perhaps I'll make some money cleaning up the messes. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Andrey V. <an...@ec...> - 2008-09-04 20:37:26
|
Dave, thank you for your explanation. I must repeat that I am not a programmer -- I am Systems Analyst (Systems Engineer/Systems Administrator). I would consider myself as a "bad programmer". I got an interest in SDCC a few years ago but did very little -- just for experiment. And as immigrant I had very limited amount of spare cash to do anything significant -- living expencies and family had higher priority. But I love electronics and would no mind get my feets deeper into this water. Unfortunately I need resolve other issue in my family which require significant financies. Andrey Dave McGuire wrote: >On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote: > > >>Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C" >>is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago. >> >> > > "C" was never "RTL". C has always been C. Various RTLs have come >and gone as needed, typically as intermediary steps in compilation. > > > >>Now it looks like "Language Source Code" -> AST -> RTL -> RTL >>optimization -> Assembly -> Linker -> Binary code. >> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StructureOfGCC >> >> > > ...for GCC perhaps. The general flow (each step of which >potentially encompasses several sub-steps of a "big" portable >compiler like GCC) is: > > source code --> > preprocessor(outputs processed source code) -> > compiler(outputs assembler) -> > assembler(outputs relocatable binary object files) -> > linker(outputs executables) --> executable file > > It simply amazes me that people who are involved in embedded >development at any level don't know this. I guess the era of "click >here to write your embedded program" has really arrived. Perhaps >I'll make some money cleaning up the messes. > > -Dave > > |
From: Arkadi S. <ar...@me...> - 2008-09-04 20:58:14
|
BTW, as this thread also touched IDE subject... Mostly for the Microchip PIC enthusiasts, there are HI-TIDE 3 integrated development environment freely available at http://www.htsoft.com/products/hitide/hitide3.php from the makers of PICC C compiler. It is based on Eclipse/CDT, has integrated PIC simulator which is not pain to use, and it won't be hard to integrate with SDCC. And it comes with friendly Welcome screen which is helpfully guide you through simple project setup in case you're a total beginner. |
From: Andrey V. <an...@ec...> - 2008-09-04 20:42:14
|
Dave, it was a time when p2c/f2c was only an option for gcc http://directory.fsf.org/project/p2c/ http://www.netlib.org/f2c/f2c.1 Andrey Dave McGuire wrote: >On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote: > > >>Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C" >>is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago. >> >> > > "C" was never "RTL". C has always been C. Various RTLs have come >and gone as needed, typically as intermediary steps in compilation. > > |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-04 21:45:02
|
My point is that RTLs are "compiler internals", and some compilers don't use them at all. High-level language translators (what f2c is) simply translate one language into another...they are not compilers per se. -Dave On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote: > Dave, > > it was a time when p2c/f2c was only an option for gcc > > http://directory.fsf.org/project/p2c/ > http://www.netlib.org/f2c/f2c.1 > > Andrey > > > Dave McGuire wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote: >> >> >>> Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right >>> that "C" >>> is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago. >>> >>> >> >> "C" was never "RTL". C has always been C. Various RTLs have come >> and gone as needed, typically as intermediary steps in compilation. >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in > the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Andrey V. <an...@ec...> - 2008-09-04 20:04:08
|
Arkadi, I am not compiler developper but I learnt it from documentation and books http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigmil/RevEng/ch02.html http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_82.html (please follow "next >>>" link) http://codingfreak.blogspot.com/2008/02/compilation-process-in-gcc.html http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/courseware/cse2302/2005/labs/lab1/gcc.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjs/123/lectures/Feb-25/makefiles.pdf http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Passes.html#Passes Ok, you might be right in regard Java source code and bytecode. Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C" is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago. Now it looks like "Language Source Code" -> AST -> RTL -> RTL optimization -> Assembly -> Linker -> Binary code. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/StructureOfGCC Sorry for some misleading information, I read documentation about internals of GCC compiler a few years (probably 6 years ago) and quite big changes happened since then. NOTE: I am not teaching but installing/configuring/suppoting IT infrastructure. Andrey Arkadi Shishlov wrote: >Andrey Vlassov wrote: > > >>If you ask them what really happens when they click "Compile" or "Run" >>you will get wrong answer. >> >> > >Half of what you wrote about compilation sequence is obviously wrong. If you >ever going to teach people about the topic, please first make clear how it >really works for yourself. > > > >>For most IDE the sequence is next: >> >>1. save file >>2. regenerate makefile (if it required) >>3. run "make" (or other equivalent) >>4. "make" runs compiler >>5. compiler takes for example C++ code (.cpp) >>6. compiler runs preprocessor (.cpp) >>7. compiler converts C++ into C (.c) >>8. compiler runs C optimizer (.c) >>9. compiler converts C into ASM (.asm) >>10. compiler runs ASM optimizer (.asm) >>11. compiler runs ASM compiler (.obj) >>12. compiler runs linker (.exe/.com/.bin/.ihx/.out) >> >>But system can get even more complicated (GNU Compiler Collection) >> >>C++ -> C >>Objective-C -> C >>Pascal -> C >>Ada -> C >>Java -> C >>Fortran -> C >>C -> Assembly >>Assembly -> binary code >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge >Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes >Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world >http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >_______________________________________________ >Sdcc-user mailing list >Sdc...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-04 21:18:39
|
see below, please. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey Vlassov" <an...@ec...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > Well, > > it is very simple -- most Windows users do not know how compiler works > (I mean what stages source come through). I work for university as > Systems Analyst and I must say that very few students learn what really > happens in background. > Little of the doc's that come with commercial products go into any detail at all about such things. > > Nowadays, every compiler is a command line program. Even Microsoft Studio > has command line compilers but most programmers do not think about it. > All what they see is IDE which is nothing than editor with syntax > highligting, integrated help system and interface to run compiler. > > If you ask them what really happens when they click "Compile" or "Run" > you will get wrong answer. > > For most IDE the sequence is next: > > 1. save file > 2. regenerate makefile (if it required) > 3. run "make" (or other equivalent) > 4. "make" runs compiler > 5. compiler takes for example C++ code (.cpp) > 6. compiler runs preprocessor (.cpp) > 7. compiler converts C++ into C (.c) > 8. compiler runs C optimizer (.c) > 9. compiler converts C into ASM (.asm) > 10. compiler runs ASM optimizer (.asm) > The most important thing is to be able to skip this step entirely, as optimization of ASM should be done by the individual programmer who should know all about every detail of the device he's programming, and should carefully optimize the code himself. > > 11. compiler runs ASM compiler (.obj) > I can't imagine what this represents, except, perhaps, a location-independent form of output that is palatable to the linker. > > 12. compiler runs linker (.exe/.com/.bin/.ihx/.out) > Why would the compiler do that? The relocatable object file(s) could originate in several different compilers, couldn't they? Perhaps the IDE would do that. > > But system can get even more complicated (GNU Compiler Collection) > > C++ -> C > Objective-C -> C > Pascal -> C > Ada -> C > Java -> C > Fortran -> C > C -> Assembly > Assembly -> binary code > > Now a question "Why is it so?". And answer is simple, so that code in > different languages could "cooperate". Programmer is free to choose > language of his choice and his code can be reused in other programming > language. Unfortunately most programmers do not use it. > > I heard that "Windows" is so great from students -- and my conclusion is > that students play more games than they study or learn about "Windows". > When I inform them that they need to set some variable they do not have > a clue what I am talking about. > This is because, with Windows 95, Microsoft began issuing their software without any formal documentation of any kind. The previous Windows 3.x had some documentation, but, I suspect, this resulted in numerous lawsuits because Microsoft failed to test its software against that documentation, probably because the documentation was written after, rather than before, the code was written, hence, the code could not be tested against it. > I've seen no official document that describes, in any way, the effect of any of the environment variable settings, switches, etc, or the ways in which they interact, with one another or with the system software or its effects on applications. If there were such a document, it should be required reading for all programmers, and they should probably be required to recite its entire content from memory. They won't be, of course. > > Well, but in regard of the subject discussed here I must agree that good > documentation with examples of working code with reasonably good > explanation what happens "under the hood" is best help for beginer > programmer. > It's not only a good thing, it's an absolute necessity, and is sadly lacking in much of the "open-source" community's output. > > I learnt C in 1989 from "The C Programming Language" (Kernigan and > Ritchie) and up to today I consider this one of the best books ever > written for subject for it's own time. > > Other gratest book "The Art of Electronics" (Horowitz and Hill) was must > read during my study. So far there is no superrior to this book > (although it is not uptodate for new technologies) in form of > explanation the subject. > > The person who started this thread had complain about documentation. I > must agree that documentation could be better but by my personal opinion > documentation is "good" enough to start. Same person would expect to > have "commercial" quality documentation with complementary books for > different MCUs. > I'm the one who started this thread, and I'd hope for much better than "commercial quality" (which, in recent years, has degenerated into total rubbish, where software and its documentation is concerned) documentation from "open-source-community" output, since it's generated by people who should actually recognize not only the necessity for and the benefit of sound documentation, but who are actually equipped both by experience with and by their personal involvement in development of their products. > > But did he took in account how much time should be put into writing > documentation? Did he took in account that many people who participate > in this project are live in poor countries where survival is quite > difficult. Did he took in account that many people who work on this > project do not speak proper English (including myself -- I am > immigrant)? Does this person have any idea how difficult to start new > life in new country from level zero? I believe that he is not. > That's exactly why it never happens. The entire conception, design, development of the final working code, trial, debugging, etc, and, if documentation exists, testing, which isn't possible without a firm document, take up less than 10% of the time and effort of such a project, and half of that 10% is for the testing that can't happen if the documentation, which is about 90% of the effort. Unfortunately, code is written by people who like to write code, and they generally don't like to write documentation, and certainly don't like to do it before they do the "fun" part. Moreover, they don't like to be restricted by a requirement for strict adherence to a predefined specification, which is what the documentation provides. Coders often like to write what they want, rather than what they should, and a predefined specification would take the fun out of their work, in many cases. > > Nobody forces him to use SDCC. There is other commercial products > available (Iar, Keil for example) which do job better than SDCC. If he > is not happy with SDCC then if he can afford other commercial product go > for it. I can not afford to buy other product which cost $5,000+ and I > prefer to use SDCC. > It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the documentation actually prevents me from using it. > > Sorry for long post, it is better to get back to work and do something > more usefull. > > Andrey > > > Bobby Garner wrote: > >> Windows users. Go to Start> All Programs> Accessories, and right click >> on Command Prompt. Click on Properties, then click the Options tab. >> Under Display options choose Window or Full Screen. Click the shortcut >> tab and notice that the target in each case is one and the same >> 'cmd.exe'. >> >> Any questions? >> >> Why would any compiler ever run in a window? Even MSDOS Quick Basic >> which runs in a GUI in full screen mode or in a window, has the >> compiler built in and it runs in the background. There is nothing to >> display except the output which goes to wherever its directed. >> >> Bobby > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-04 21:43:27
|
On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: > It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the > documentation actually prevents me from using it. Good heavens Richard, don't give up so easily. I've looked at the manual once or twice, and have developed quite a few systems using SDCC, some of which are successful commercial products. Just sit down and write your firmware, man. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Richard G. <ri...@re...> - 2008-09-04 22:24:45
|
I think Dave makes a good point here - I've had to do some hacking to make anything useful happen, and that has entailed writing several noddy programs to try things out, but on the whole the experience has been [fairly] painless. I suspect that programming OTP chips isn't the place to begin though! :-D On Thursday 04 September 2008 22:43:16 Dave McGuire wrote: > On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: > > It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the > > documentation actually prevents me from using it. > > Good heavens Richard, don't give up so easily. I've looked at the > manual once or twice, and have developed quite a few systems using > SDCC, some of which are successful commercial products. Just sit > down and write your firmware, man. > > -Dave -- Richard. PGP Key-id: 0x5AB3D350 Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. -- Groucho Marx |
From: <bo...@co...> - 2008-09-04 22:23:48
|
> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the > documentation actually prevents me from using it. Have you even installed it yet? Randy |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-04 22:43:38
|
Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the resulting conditions are not well defined. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: <bo...@co...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > >> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the >> documentation actually prevents me from using it. > > Have you even installed it yet? > > Randy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-04 22:50:59
|
And you run Windows?? -Dave On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the > resulting > conditions are not well defined. > > regards, > > Richard Erlacher > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <bo...@co...> > To: <sdc...@li...> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:23 PM > Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > > >> >>> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency >>> in the >>> documentation actually prevents me from using it. >> >> Have you even installed it yet? >> >> Randy >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's >> challenge >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win >> great >> prizes >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the >> world >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Sdcc-user mailing list >> Sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in > the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-05 00:52:48
|
Dave - It's done everything I expected, based on M$-published documentation from previous generations, though it came pre-installed, so I simply put up with what it did/didn't do. I did buy a sealed copy of XP-Home-Edition ... for $2, ... about what it's worth ... which initially came from the M$ employee store, though I was not nor have I ever been, a M$ employee. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" <mc...@ne...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > > And you run Windows?? > > -Dave > > On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: >> Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the >> resulting >> conditions are not well defined. >> >> regards, >> >> Richard Erlacher >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <bo...@co...> >> To: <sdc...@li...> >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally >> >> >>> >>>> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency >>>> in the >>>> documentation actually prevents me from using it. >>> >>> Have you even installed it yet? >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's >>> challenge >>> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win >>> great >>> prizes >>> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the >>> world >>> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sdcc-user mailing list >>> Sdc...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's >> challenge >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win >> great prizes >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in >> the world >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Sdcc-user mailing list >> Sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user |
From: <bo...@co...> - 2008-09-05 01:10:47
|
> >> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the > >> documentation actually prevents me from using it. > > > > Have you even installed it yet? > > Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the resulting > conditions are not well defined. OK. Have you figured out how to get that c code off the paper, and into a file? Or maybe onto punched cards? (sorry, I couldn't pass that one up!!!) Did you notice chapter 3 in the fine manual??? Did you read it, and understand it, including the part about startup code? No questions? Good. Did you try to compile anything yet???????????? What happened? Randy |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-05 04:37:31
|
see below, please. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: <bo...@co...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > >> >> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the >> >> documentation actually prevents me from using it. >> > >> > Have you even installed it yet? >> >> Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the resulting >> conditions are not well defined. > > OK. > > Have you figured out how to get that c code off the paper, and into a > file? > Or maybe onto punched cards? (sorry, I couldn't pass that one up!!!) > Nope ... no Hollerith cards ... I couldn't lift the keypunch ... I'm getting old, doncha know! In fact, I just click over another year as of 9/5. I haven't found any doc's on the assembler syntax ... is that out there somewhere? Different assemblers do use different syntax. Looking at the ASM output will tell me much of what I want to know. I also want to try out the assembler, since there's question as to whether I'll ever write a program large enough (>250K lines of ASM) to warrant using a HLL. It might be interesting for purposes of making a choice between MCU's though, as SDCC is supposed to treat MCS51 parts, MC68HC-whatever's, and a few others I'm less likely to consider. That's what piqued my interest. > > Did you notice chapter 3 in the fine manual??? Yes, I did, though I found, for example, lots of references to "segment" but no definition and certainly no general assertion as to how their use affects the output. There are several specifics, but a higher level explanation would help clear things up. The only place I've routinely used that term is in CPU's that use segment registers, e.g. i80x86. > Did you read it, and understand it, including the part about startup code? I did see that, but haven't digested it yet. > No questions? Maybe later. > Good. > > Did you try to compile anything yet???????????? Certainly not! One has to know what the outcome will be before one runs a program. > What happened? I got a virus warning when I downloaded the v2.8.2 files. I didn't get that warning after a second download, and found that the doc section under AS addresses a number of assemblers with this title, "ASxxxx Cross Assemblers, Version 1.7, November 1995 " and says, " This collection contains cross assemblers for the 6800(6802/6808), 6801(hd6303), 6804, 6805, 68HC08, 6809, 6811, 68HC16 8085(8080), z80(hd64180), H8/3xx, and 6500 series microprocessors," few of which are what currently interests me, and fewer yet are supported by SDCC, according to what I've read so far. I saw nothing about an 805x assembler among the assembler doc. > Randy > |
From: Dave M. <mc...@ne...> - 2008-09-05 04:41:02
|
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Nope ... no Hollerith cards ... I couldn't lift the keypunch ... > I'm getting > old, doncha know! In fact, I just click over another year as of 9/5. Happy birthday! > I haven't found any doc's on the assembler syntax ... is that out > there > somewhere? ... > I didn't get that warning after a second download, and found that > the doc > section under AS addresses a number of assemblers with this title, > "ASxxxx Cross Assemblers, Version 1.7, November 1995 " > and says, " This collection contains cross assemblers for the > 6800(6802/6808), 6801(hd6303), 6804, 6805, 68HC08, 6809, 6811, > 68HC16 > 8085(8080), z80(hd64180), H8/3xx, and 6500 series > microprocessors," few of > which are what currently interests me, and fewer yet are supported > by SDCC, > according to what I've read so far. I saw nothing about an 805x > assembler > among the assembler doc. I don't have a source tree in front of me, but I've *used* the doc for the MCS51 assembler. It's in there somewhere, unless it has been removed. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-05 05:13:25
|
see below, please. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" <mc...@ne...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote: >> Nope ... no Hollerith cards ... I couldn't lift the keypunch ... >> I'm getting >> old, doncha know! In fact, I just click over another year as of 9/5. > > Happy birthday! > >> I haven't found any doc's on the assembler syntax ... is that out >> there >> somewhere? > ... >> I didn't get that warning after a second download, and found that >> the doc >> section under AS addresses a number of assemblers with this title, >> "ASxxxx Cross Assemblers, Version 1.7, November 1995 " >> and says, " This collection contains cross assemblers for the >> 6800(6802/6808), 6801(hd6303), 6804, 6805, 68HC08, 6809, 6811, >> 68HC16 >> 8085(8080), z80(hd64180), H8/3xx, and 6500 series >> microprocessors," few of >> which are what currently interests me, and fewer yet are supported >> by SDCC, >> according to what I've read so far. I saw nothing about an 805x >> assembler >> among the assembler doc. > > I don't have a source tree in front of me, but I've *used* the doc > for the MCS51 assembler. It's in there somewhere, unless it has been > removed. > There's an appendix, free standing, that describes the 805x instruction set, IIRC, but no information about the 805x assembler at all. Is it a macro-capable assembler? What are its syntax requirements? Has it got a preprocessor of any sort? ... etc. Who would remove such a document? Why would there be all those references to unsupported processor cores' assemblers? What's going on? Where is that source to be found? I got an "ASEM51," Macro Assembler by W.W. Heinz, which has a pretty good HTML help package, from somewhere in the SDCC files. Is that the right one? I have my doubts. > > -Dave > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL |
From: <bo...@co...> - 2008-09-05 07:32:42
|
> > Did you try to compile anything yet???????????? > > Certainly not! One has to know what the outcome will be before one runs a > program. Why? Whatcha afraid of? > > What happened? > > I got a virus warning when I downloaded the v2.8.2 files. > > I didn't get that warning after a second download, So, I guess there really was no virus, after all????????????? Maybe it is just *your* system that has the virus??? But what I meant was: "what happened when you ran the compiler?" You really need to take a little more of the responsibility for figuring this out yourself. Only a fool would try to learn this without ever trying to run the compiler. Do you always take this approach to learning something new? Did you learn to drive a car (assuming you did) by reading a manual? Do you think fighter pilots train by just reading manuals? Maybe you would like to learn to ski, by reading a f*ing manual??? How many chess players taught themselves to play by just reading, and never playing a game until they were at expert level? > and found that the doc > section under AS addresses a number of assemblers with this title, > "ASxxxx Cross Assemblers, Version 1.7, November 1995 " Perhaps you missed the 2.0 doc, in same directory???? I don't know why the 1.7 is still there, I am pretty new around here myself. Randy |
From: Richard E. <ed...@id...> - 2008-09-05 08:17:41
|
see below, please. regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: <bo...@co...> To: <sdc...@li...> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > >> > Did you try to compile anything yet???????????? >> >> Certainly not! One has to know what the outcome will be before one runs >> a >> program. > > Why? Whatcha afraid of? > I don't want to waste my time. It's a waste of time to "try something" if you don't know what the outcome is supposed to be. > >> > What happened? >> >> I got a virus warning when I downloaded the v2.8.2 files. >> >> I didn't get that warning after a second download, > > So, I guess there really was no virus, after all????????????? > Maybe it is just *your* system that has the virus??? > > But what I meant was: "what happened when you ran the compiler?" > You really need to take a little more of the responsibility for > figuring this out yourself. Only a fool would try to learn this > without ever trying to run the compiler. > > Do you always take this approach to learning something new? > > Did you learn to drive a car (assuming you did) by reading a manual? > No, I had someone who knew exactly what he was doing (My Dad) demonstrate it for me and subsequently guide me through the process. And, ... in answer to your previous question, when I was a boy, curious about a new subject, I'd read every book in the library about that subject, and then begin to experiment. It doesn't help to poke around, until you have some idea of what to expect. > > Do you think fighter pilots train by just reading manuals? > No, but they do learn the basics by reading the instructions, and no sane person would attempt to fly without fully understanding the basics, going through months of simulator training, etc, before getting into the cockpit and attempting to take off. Then they are attended by expert instructors. > > Maybe you would like to learn to ski, by reading a f*ing manual??? > Hmmm ... I've never seen a manual that could do that! I don't remember how I learned. I learned it the same year I learned to walk. I couldn't yet read back then. > > How many chess players taught themselves to play by just reading, > and never playing a game until they were at expert level? > The first 100 games were at beginner level, just like most folks, but they learned the rules and the moves, and the basic openings, and basic endgames by reading. It wouldn't matter how many games they played, until they'd read all the available materials dealing with openings, endgames, and mid-game strategies. The experts knew all that. There's no quicker way to benefit from the knowledge of others than to read their writings. > >> and found that the doc >> section under AS addresses a number of assemblers with this title, >> "ASxxxx Cross Assemblers, Version 1.7, November 1995 " > That was in the 2.8 package. Likewise, the 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, etc. There was no other ASM doc in the doc subdirectory. > > Perhaps you missed the 2.0 doc, in same directory???? I don't know > why the 1.7 is still there, I am pretty new around here myself. > I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it. There are only six files in that directory, and two of them are truncated at both ends. > > Randy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |