AVR-Chat

Chuck Hackett wrote:
> Well, I discovered part of my problem.  The program I'm working with was
> originally written for the ImageCraft C compiler and I'm using WinAVR(gcc).  I
> tried to convert everything as well as I could but apparently something I don't
> understand is going on because I downloaded the trial version of ImageCraft V7
> today and the program ran the first time!  I'm thinking that it has something to
> do with the differences in support for stdout (usart) but I haven't nailed it
> down.
> 
> So, I'm re-evaluating what compiler to use.  I realize that this issue is
> somewhat "religious" in nature but I have to ask.  Considering:
> 
> CodeVision
> 
> ImageCraft
> 
> WinAVR
> 
> Which would/did you pick and why?  What, in your mind, are the advantages and
> disadvantages of each?  Features, library completeness, documentation, help
> system, support, usefulness of available user forums, etc.
> 
> I know WinAVR is free but the cost of ImageCraft ($199) and CodeVision ($150)
> seem reasonable if justified in support, features, etc.
> 
> BTW: I'm programming in a Windows XP environment and have AVRSTudio and an
> STK500 and JTAG ICE-Cube.  I want to be able to use the full AVR line from TINY
> to MEGA.  I'll do 90% in C but may need bits of code in assembler some day.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any guidance you may be able to provide.

When i last used imagecraft some years ago, it didn't support all C constructs
such as pointers to functions from within structs, enums declared within a function, etc.
May be different now, but i'm using avr-gcc which i compile myself on debian.

Russell Shaw wrote:
> Chuck Hackett wrote:
> 
>> Well, I discovered part of my problem.  The program I'm working with was
>> originally written for the ImageCraft C compiler and I'm using 
>> WinAVR(gcc)...

>> Thanks in advance for any guidance you may be able to provide.

Correction: it was codevision.

> When i last used imagecraft some years ago, it didn't support all C constructs
> such as pointers to functions from within structs, enums declared within 
> a function, etc. May be different now, but i'm using avr-gcc which i compile
 > myself on debian.

Great questions!  GCC is nice and free, but does it come at a cost?  
Are there worthwhile "value-added" features for the more costly 
compilers?

The command line interface is slightly annoying but not impossible, 
even when I still have not completely solved my problem with runing 
the make program.  I worked around it and I am compiling just fine.  I 
soon will have the actual hardware. to try out.  Mavric-IIb and ICE-
cube.

I can manage with GCC since my needs are not complex.  But I still 
would like to know if the other $$$ compliers have features worth the 
cost.   I will be watching the anwsers to your queston!

-Tony

--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> wrote:
> > Which would/did you pick and why?  What, in your mind, are the 
advantages > > I know WinAVR is free but the cost of ImageCraft ($199) 
and CodeVision ($150)
> > seem reasonable if justified in support, features, etc.
> > 
> > BTW: I'm programming in a Windows XP environment and have 
AVRSTudio and an
> > STK500 and JTAG ICE-Cube.  I want to be able to use the full AVR 
line from TINY
> > to MEGA.  I'll do 90% in C but may need bits of code in assembler 
some day.

Tony,

  There are IDE's out there for gcc-avr on the Windoze platform, I've not
seen any for Linux or Mac yet, but I've not yet exhausted my searches
either.  The IDE's usually handle the makefile generation and use, but
aren't as flexible as the command line "make" is.
  I've found gcc-avr to be complete, with some good tools (like one to
put the assembly and source interleaved in a .lst file, verbose, but
OK to use, and of course AVR-DUDE which works well for serial port
programming, but is kind of unpredictable for parallel port use (like
the parallel port usually is!)
  I've not found avr-gcc to be universally well optimized though
compared to Bascom/AVR or Codevision/AVR.  I was astonished to see
what was generated for what should have been a simple ISR routine,
so there is some "cost" for the free nature of gcc-avr there.  The
printf library is also very "fat" compared to those other dedicated
IDE/compiler combos.
  Since avr-gcc is just another port of gcc to another hardware
platform, there is no real hardware support for the peripherals in
the AVR chips.  I've heard of others that have abstracted the hardware
out in "third party" libs, but I haven't seen them, so I can't comment.
For many of us, this isn't much of a handicap since we like to
twiddle bits to set things up ourselves anyway, but having library
support for other I2C, SPI, etc. chips is quite handy.  Perhaps a
Google for such code will provide the needed help, not tried that yet.
  All things considered though, warts and all, avr-gcc is a good bet
for AVR programming.  ESPECIALLY if you want to play somewhere other
than the Windoze environment.  It is full ANSI C so far as I can tell
and will allow the use of lots of cool code that is out there with
minimal porting effort.

IMO,YMMV,
DLC

>
> Great questions!  GCC is nice and free, but does it come at a cost?
> Are there worthwhile "value-added" features for the more costly
> compilers?
>
> The command line interface is slightly annoying but not impossible,
> even when I still have not completely solved my problem with runing
> the make program.  I worked around it and I am compiling just fine.  I
> soon will have the actual hardware. to try out.  Mavric-IIb and ICE-
> cube.
>
> I can manage with GCC since my needs are not complex.  But I still
> would like to know if the other $$$ compliers have features worth the
> cost.   I will be watching the anwsers to your queston!
>
> -Tony
>
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> wrote:
>> > Which would/did you pick and why?  What, in your mind, are the
> advantages > > I know WinAVR is free but the cost of ImageCraft ($199)
> and CodeVision ($150)
>> > seem reasonable if justified in support, features, etc.
>> >
>> > BTW: I'm programming in a Windows XP environment and have
> AVRSTudio and an
>> > STK500 and JTAG ICE-Cube.  I want to be able to use the full AVR
> line from TINY
>> > to MEGA.  I'll do 90% in C but may need bits of code in assembler
> some day.

Hi DLC,

>   There are IDE's out there for gcc-avr on the Windoze platform, I've not
> seen any for Linux or Mac yet, but I've not yet exhausted my searches
> either.  The IDE's usually handle the makefile generation and use, but
> aren't as flexible as the command line "make" is.

According to this page:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html

Eclipse works under Linux, Mac OS X, Windows and a few others

-- 
Dave Hylands
Vancouver, BC, Canada
http://www.DaveHylands.com/

CodeVision (super easy, low cost) and ??? others support the tiny addressing
modes for chips with small RAMs (256 Bytes or less). This permits 8 bit
pointers. I used this to really cram a lot more code in a small chip than
with GCC which does not support this model - made a big difference.   I
admit, many here are using the higher end chips.

 

 

  _____  

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ivan Vernot
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:32 PM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: Compilers

 

Check the archives - this question comes up a lot :-)

The main contenders are (approx, in order of cost)
- IAR - IDE based compiler. Most expensive, generally regarded as having
best (tightest) code generation. Check out people's comments of their level
of tech support and reports of their debugger (CSpy)

- CrossStudio - Excellent IDE. Mid Priced. Have not used it for AVR. Have
not seen much discussion re AVRs but have a good reputation for their MSP
complier.

- ImageCraft - IDE Based Compiler. ANSI C. Cheaper than IAR. Code Generator.
Good code generation. EXCELLENT Tech Support.

- CodeVision - IDE based Compiler. About the same cost as ICC. Last time I
looked did not support all ANSI C construction (?pointer to functions) BUT -
I HAVE NOT checked this out for a while. Reports I have seen on this product
are generally positive.

GCC - WinAVR seems to be the best know package for AVR. Includes other
support tools. People have reported being able to use it with Eclipse.
Reports Code generation quality seems to be a bit inconsistent - some say
it's not great (but, hey its free) others say that it is actually extremely
good - I don't know. reports are in their extremes - some people swear by it
others can't get it to go.  IMO people are more positive than negative re
WinAVR.

Most (all?) vendors offer a 30day full featured version for one to try out -
the best thing is for you to try it and see which one works the way you want
to work.

DISCLAIMER.
* I am very happy ImageCraft User and certainly would recommend it.
* I am currently evaluating CrossStudio for the MSP (not AVR)
* I have used IAR on other micros (not AVR)
* I have used/owned an early version of the CodeVision Compiler and have not
sued the most recent version.
* I have not used WinAVR at all.

HTH
Ivan Vernot
www.realtimedesigns.com.au


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "arhodes19044" <spamiam@comcast.net>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: Compilers


>
>
> Great questions!  GCC is nice and free, but does it come at a cost?
> Are there worthwhile "value-added" features for the more costly
> compilers?
>
> The command line interface is slightly annoying but not impossible,
> even when I still have not completely solved my problem with runing
> the make program.  I worked around it and I am compiling just fine.  I
> soon will have the actual hardware. to try out.  Mavric-IIb and ICE-
> cube.
>
> I can manage with GCC since my needs are not complex.  But I still
> would like to know if the other $$$ compliers have features worth the
> cost.   I will be watching the anwsers to your queston!
>
> -Tony
>
> --- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@n...> wrote:
> > > Which would/did you pick and why?  What, in your mind, are the
> advantages > > I know WinAVR is free but the cost of ImageCraft ($199)
> and CodeVision ($150)
> > > seem reasonable if justified in support, features, etc.
> > >
> > > BTW: I'm programming in a Windows XP environment and have
> AVRSTudio and an
> > > STK500 and JTAG ICE-Cube.  I want to be able to use the full AVR
> line from TINY
> > > to MEGA.  I'll do 90% in C but may need bits of code in assembler
> some day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




MSGTAG <http://www.msgtag.com/?source=pfooter>  has notified the sender that
you have read this message.

  <http://img.msgtag.com/afff/mqsichDegz/dE/ABekzmbmxxu/dmgEm.gif> 

  _____  

Yahoo! Groups Links

*	To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVR-Chat/
  
*	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AVR-Chat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:AVR-Chat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 
  
*	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.

> From: wbounce
> 
> It has taken me a while but I finally have a stable version of winavr.
> From the little I have seen there are differences in compilers. I have
> run across some CodeVision examples and the syntax is difference enough
> to cause problems. Not enough that I could not follow what was going on
> but enough to cause compile problems things like _bv verse bv etc
> 
> The main reason I use is is it is free. But now I can also say because
> there are good people who are willing to help and also example code.

In any case I'll keep WinAVR around.  I really like the Programmer's Notepad.
Someone mentioned the Eclipse IDE (www.eclipse.org).  Does anyone have
experience using it with CodeVision, ImageCraft and/or WinAVR?


> --------------------------
> From: arhodes19044
> 
> Great questions!  GCC is nice and free, but does it come at a cost?
> Are there worthwhile "value-added" features for the more costly
> compilers?

I don't recall anyone commenting on this ... can anyone say what
CodeVision/ImageCraft have that WinAVR doesn't?

> The command line interface is slightly annoying but not impossible,
> even when I still have not completely solved my problem with runing
> the make program.  I worked around it and I am compiling just fine.  I
> soon will have the actual hardware. to try out.  Mavric-IIb and ICE-
> cube.

Have you tried Programmer's Notepad?  I haven't had to use WinAVR's command line
interface, I just click on the menu item "Make All".

> I can manage with GCC since my needs are not complex.  But I still
> would like to know if the other $$$ compliers have features worth the
> cost.   I will be watching the anwsers to your question!

Me too :-)


> --------------------------
> From: DLC <dlc@frii.com>
> 
> Tony,
> 
> ....
>   I've found gcc-avr to be complete, with some good tools (like one to
> put the assembly and source interleaved in a .lst file, verbose, but
> OK to use ....

I have found gcc (WinAVR in my case) to be a pleasant experience so far but I
haven't built extensive projects in it yet.  I downloaded the trial version of
ImageCraft because that's what the vendor had done the example code in that I
was struggling to get to work.  I don't have enough experience in either of them
yet to differentiate the two (I haven't tried different pointer constructs,
enums, etc. yet).

>   I've not found avr-gcc to be universally well optimized though
> compared to Bascom/AVR or CodeVision/AVR.  I was astonished to see
> what was generated for what should have been a simple ISR routine,
> so there is some "cost" for the free nature of gcc-avr there.  The
> printf library is also very "fat" compared to those other dedicated
> IDE/compiler combos.

At the moment I value robustness/reliability more than code compactness.  I want
to know that an error is mine, not the compiler, and I'm using fairly large
processors at the moment.

>   Since avr-gcc is just another port of gcc to another hardware
> platform, there is no real hardware support for the peripherals in
> the AVR chips.  I've heard of others that have abstracted the hardware
> out in "third party" libs, but I haven't seen them, so I can't comment.
> For many of us, this isn't much of a handicap since we like to
> twiddle bits to set things up ourselves anyway, but having library
> support for other I2C, SPI, etc. chips is quite handy.  Perhaps a
> Google for such code will provide the needed help, not tried that yet.

At this point in my "embedded" life it's good for me to write all that stuff
myself so that I get familiar with the internal workings of the AVRs.  Of
course, it'd be handy if I have to get it done today!  :-)

Is CodeVision or ImageCraft better in this area?

> -------------------------- From the Message Archives ----
> From: "Cobb, Quentin" <quentin_cobb@...> 
> Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004  4:59 pm
>
> GCC - Is for Linux, free software aficionados. It works, isn't pretty,
> takes a bit of work to get all the bits up and running, has the stuff the
> commercial products have, but not in a ready-to-go hold-your-hand package.

I've found it easy to get along with so far ...

> Imagecraft. "Industrial Strength" professional, expensive compiler. I
> can't talk much about it as it's beyond my budget so I haven't used it or
> seen it used.

I was curious why you say ImageCraft is "expensive", so I went back and looked.
I had only been looking at the STD version ($199 USD).  I hadn't realized that
it was only good for up to 64Kb.  To support the ATMega128, etc. you have to go
up to the "Advanced" version which is $348 USD - a little steep for what I'm
doing.  I thought that CodeVision was $150 USD but I had again misread the web
site.  It's 150 EUR! ($196 USD).  I also found that it's available from
http://www.prllc.com for $180 USD.  Hmmm, I think I may try to see if I can live
with WinAVR.  You sure can't beat the price.

> My personal preference is CodeVision. There is a free "evaluation" version
> that is code-size limited, but good enough for all but the really big
> projects. Even if you decide to pay for it, it's still very reasonable.
> Much easier to set up than GCC, has nice code generating wizards that save a
> bit of manual reading the first time you use a feature. Lots of code
> libraries.
>
> ALL these C compilers meet your criteria, (except Imagecraft isn't very
> cheap)

Ease of use and "lots of code libraries" are important to me but I wonder if it
would be worth the $180 in my work - yea, I know, no one can answer that one
except me ...

I have the book "Embedded C Programming and the Atmel AVR" which is based on
CodeVision so that's one plus for it :-)

In my limited use of WinAVR and ImageCraft I think WinAVR puts out better
diagnostics (warnings, errors, etc.).  I had at least one case where the code I
was trying to convert had "if (x = 0)".  ImageCraft silently ignored it but
WinAVR warned that "=" probably should be "==".

Bottom line, from reading current emails, archive emails, and web sites is that
I'm coming to the conclusion that, if you want a compiler with an IDE,
CodeVision and ImageCraft are fairly close but that CodeVision is less expensive
and if you can live without a fancy IDE that WinAVR (gcc) is free and will do
just about anything the others will do except for code generation wizards.

Have I missed something?

Thanks to all for your comments ...

Cheers,

Chuck Hackett
"Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment"
7.5" gauge Union Pacific Northern (4-8-4) 844
http://www.whitetrout.net/Chuck

Hello DLC,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:39:38AM -0600, dlc@frii.com wrote:

"[..]
  [..]gcc [..]
[..]
[..]  It is full ANSI C so far as I can tell
[..]"

GCC is not compatible with full ANSI C. Please see
HTTP://GCC.GNU.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:30:45AM +0100, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> "[..]
>   [..]gcc [..]
> [..]
> [..]  It is full ANSI C so far as I can tell
> [..]"
> 
> GCC is not compatible with full ANSI C. Please see
> HTTP://GCC.GNU.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html

Actually, "full ANSI" is not all that specific.  There are several
standards, C99 being just one.  The earlier C89/C90 "ANSI standard"
does appear to be fully supported, and the verious dialects are
selectable by command line options, i.e.:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options

For more information on what GCC standards supports, see:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html

While conformance to C99 may be incomplete, it certainly appears to me
that all the important areas are covered.  For example, few embedded
projects require "wide character" support, variable length arrays, or
complex / imaginary numbers.  Out of curiousity, are these supported
by other commercial compiler vendors, and if so, which ones?

But at least they do actually publish where in the standards that
support is not complete.  I wonder if we could see such a detailed
standards conformance document from the other compiler vendors?

-Brian
-- 
Brian Dean
BDMICRO - ATmega128 Based MAVRIC Controllers
http://www.bdmicro.com/

Of all the things to take me to task for... I'm surprised that as long 
as gcc has been in the works, and as many big projects have used it, 
that it isn't fully ANSI C compliant yet.

Learn something new every day!
DLC

Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> Hello DLC,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:39:38AM -0600, dlc@frii.com wrote:
> 
> "[..]
>   [..]gcc [..]
> [..]
> [..]  It is full ANSI C so far as I can tell
> [..]"
> 
> GCC is not compatible with full ANSI C. Please see
> HTTP://GCC.GNU.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html


-- 
---------------------------------------
Dennis Clark    TTT Enterprises
---------------------------------------

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:51:07AM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:

"On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:30:45AM +0100, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> "[..]
>   [..]gcc [..]
> [..]
> [..]  It is full ANSI C so far as I can tell
> [..]"
> 
> GCC is not compatible with full ANSI C. Please see
> HTTP://GCC.GNU.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html

Actually, "full ANSI" is not all that specific.  There are several
standards, C99 being just one."

With C99 being the only one which is currently ANSI C. The status of an
ANSI document does not remain classified by ANSI as a standard forever.

"  The earlier C89/C90 "ANSI standard" [..]"

Which had been ANSI C and is not now ANSI C.

"[..]

But at least they do actually publish where in the standards that
support is not complete.  I wonder if we could see such a detailed
standards conformance document from the other compiler vendors?"

It is very common for even vendors to claim they are using "ANSI C" when
they are not even aware of what the term means.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:25:57AM -0700, Dennis Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> Of all the things to take me to task for... I'm surprised that as long 
> as gcc has been in the works, and as many big projects have used it, 
> that it isn't fully ANSI C compliant yet.

What do you perceive "full ANSI" would do to add value?

One of the wonderful things about standards is there are so many to
choose from, most likely there is one which your product already meets.

-- 
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.