Searching \ for 'Who wants LINUX tools' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=who+wants+linux
Search entire site for: 'Who wants LINUX tools'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Who wants LINUX tools'
1998\07\24@131154 by Walter Banks

picon face
A couple of years ago I did an informal survey on the PIC list
to find out who was interested in using Linux for development.
At that time there was very little interest in the use of Linux based
tools  for application development. There was some interest in
the use of Linux for personal projects.

The release of Windows 98 has revitalized Linux interest by
many development companies.  If development tools were
available under Linux would this be the operating system of
choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
ported to run under Linux?

Walter Banks
(519) 888 6911
spam_OUTwalterTakeThisOuTspambytecraft.com
http://www.bytecraft.com

1998\07\24@134116 by Chris Cole

flavicon
face
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Walter Banks wrote:

> available under Linux would this be the operating system of
> choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
> ported to run under Linux?

Walter Banks,

       I would like to see a 68332 compiler/debugger that supported BDM
debugging under Linux.  I can cross-compile code and create hex files,
download the code to a protoboard, etc... But debugging capabilities are
nil.

       I wish there was some program for Linux that supported BDM for
Motorola processors.

       -Chris Cole
        .....coleKILLspamspam@spam@pile.com

1998\07\24@142633 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
Me, and just about every nerd, EE student, CS student, garage hobbyist etc
out there. I use it today anyway, with DOSEMU to run PICALC (runs fine)
and direct port access user-mode self-written driver for home-made
programmer.

I'd buy any Linux version of a toolkit including an IDE and assembler + C
capable to output OBJ format NOW provided it would be in the same price
range as 'cheap' tools of the same kind are for the PC DOS now.

There are a few MUSTS:

- No dongles
- No per-seat license
- Network capability must not be disabled
- Must accept that output in an open format is OBLIGATORY, even more so
than any programmer driver support. Intel OBJ format is fine.
- Must accept that external text editors etc be used.
- Must have an option or the possibility of running the output code
through an unspecified UNIX filter of any kind (in binary mode).
- X11 support not necessary, curses-based action with some X support for
running in an xterminal is ok by me.

This is imho very easily done, perhaps starting with an older version of
tools written for DOS terminal mode.

So, count me in, count me in. Who do I give my VISA card # to ?

Peter

PS: This is not just for PICs. Other popular micros used by the nerd
community include HC11 80X3[125] and ST62, as well as TMS320 and AVR. All
of these have had serious effort invested into tools by various people and
there are crude utilities that can be worked with, but a fully supported
integrated package for $$$ is HIGHLY timely imho. A modular type IDE with
compilers/assemblers to be added would be best imho.

PS2: Small bias warning: Red Hat is a Linux version that has taken off
considerably in the last time, with the undesirable side effect that many
new software packages for Linux require the Red Hat package manager to be
present, and give pure hell to anyone running another flavor of Linux,
when trying to install.

 I add to this that most serious developers/programmers/ISPs who use
Linux for real work I see here (not that it means much) DO NOT run Red
Hat, they run severely modified Slackware Linux (which has no Red Hat
package manager). Red Hat is more for end users, as more install-friendly
(ditto Caldera, Suse and others).

 In practice, a package for Slackware will be usable on Slackware and on
all the other flavors, and a package for any other flavor may not be
usable on any other flavor. There. Flame away Linuxers, I'm ready.

PS3: Please excuse my long email, and know that I've forwarded the message
to the local Linux User Group. Another adresses that this message may be
sent to is:

SVLUG - The Silicon Valley Linux User Group

1998\07\24@151326 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>The release of Windows 98 has revitalized Linux interest by
>many development companies.  If development tools were

<snicker>

>available under Linux would this be the operating system of
>choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
>ported to run under Linux?

I would like to have X-based stuff.  Tools would be:

       C Compiler system (compiler, assembler, linker) - should make files
               compatible with the same brand DOS/Win versions for portability.
               Currently I use HiTech PICC (primary), MPLAB-C (old one), CVASM1
6
               (Tech Tools).
       Tech-Tools Mathias (GUI X-based)
       Carmacon programmer (GUI X or command-line) - this is already a
               "happening" thing, for those interested...
       RICE17A (GUI X-based)

Part of the reason for X basis is to permit operation remotely.

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\07\24@151711 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Walter Banks wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago I did an informal survey on the PIC list
> to find out who was interested in using Linux for development.
> At that time there was very little interest in the use of Linux based
> tools  for application development. There was some interest in
> the use of Linux for personal projects.
>
> The release of Windows 98 has revitalized Linux interest by
> many development companies.  If development tools were
> available under Linux would this be the operating system of
> choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
> ported to run under Linux?

Walter,

You are kidding aren't you?  And why would the release of Windows 98
revitalize interest in Linux? Or is that just a rhetorical question?

As far as what tools I'd like see ported to Linux: all of them. I don't
expect Microchip to port MPLAB - I would guess that they would (if they
could) get Picstart+ working under NT first. There are other PIC IDE's
out there for win xx - and I don't expect any of them to port to Linux
either. So, are you thinking about creating some sort of IDE? Would you
be interested in participating in the GNUPIC project? (Would anyone for
that matter be interested in particpating in the GNUPIC project?) So far
James Bowman has written a quality assembler - one that can be easily
enhanced to support the entire PIC suite (right now he's only supporting
the x84). I'm about to release an alpha version of gpsim, a PIC
simulator which promises to blow the socks off of mplab in terms of
performance (but not in terms of the user interface...).

This week's issue of EE Times (issue 1017) has an article discussing the
engineer's desire for Linux based tools.

ISD magazine hosted a Linux vs. NT contest for EDA tools. Check out who
is winning:
http://colo.isdmag.com/edawars/


Scott

1998\07\24@152910 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
Ahh this is a norm in the Unix world... Win version $29.95 Unix version
$68,543.25. and the unix version is a helluva lot easier to write!
most software for unix is way overpriced as they cant get a dongle to work
under linux as easily as Winsnooze, (and the fact that a dongle emulator
is childs play under unix)

On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Peter L. Peres wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Yup I agree 1000%

1998\07\24@152922 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
:-) you can always telnet to your machine and run it.
>
> Part of the reason for X basis is to permit operation remotely.
>
> ==================================================================
> Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
> ==================================================================
>

1998\07\24@161055 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Andy Kunz wrote:

> Part of the reason for X basis is to permit operation remotely.

What's wrong with rpc, rlogin, telnet and batching, as well as CGI-based
intranet programmer access ? Apart from the fact that neither requires any
GUI on the far end, or an X client and X libs. Why choose the heaviest,
most resource-hungry possible way to do this ? Am I missing something ?

sorry for barging,

       Peter

1998\07\24@172908 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
I want to go almost all-Linux (CLI and/or XWindow) eventually, as much
as possible.  Everything from Cad packages, to MPLab etc., to BBS
software & Fax Server.  Probably by the end of this year.  Others are
welcome to their choice of OS, just what's best according to my
criteria, for me.

 Upgrading 20 machines' hardware & OS on the LAN here, on my one-man
company salary, every few years as MicroSoft decides to (IMHO) bloat
their hardware requirements, without increasing speed & functionality &
reliability, is just NOT attractive to me;  It's bad enough replacing
Power Supply fans on this many machines!  Paying another $500 a year to
MicroSoft for "crashOSware" isn't something I want to, or will, do -
part of why I have only 1 (not even online today) Win95 box (strange how
much more stable my Win4WG 3.11 486DX33 file server is, than my Win95
P-166 box has been...  And the Dos boxes are even more stable.)

 The File Server has been through 2 replacement power supply fans, in 3
years, with about 2 crashes (Each told me I needed not to print
too-large .PDF files unless I increased virtual RAM - I fixed that.
Then printed a way too large .PDF, and increased it again <G>) - except
for hardware problems I've caused by upgrading the machine, not an OS
problem as POST or bootup would fail <G>  Need to put the new file
server together, here, the old server IS slowish.  And it's fan's sick,
and getting noisier <G>

 The Win98-required extra hardware upgrades are not something I *need*
to pay for, either, doing things through Linux (surprising how well a
386sx25 with 8 Mb of RAM can do most all the things Win95 users can do
with a Pentium 2, with the correct software tools;  better software
should be faster, not require a faster machine, IMHO!  Then I can run
better software, on a better piece of hardware, spending part (well,
probably ALL <G>) the money I don't have to spend on OS upgrades, on
hardware improvements instead...)

 I figure this approach will make me more productive, for less money, I
just need to get there from here.

 I want to stay with Dos on the old XT's and AT's (or perhaps move to
ELKS?), as terminals to a Linux machine, and go for Linux on all the
386+ machines, and be able to have source to most everything I run
sitting here on the LAN.  Just need to get there, I'm reading in my
spare time to learn...  No more tracking serial numbers of my OS's.  No
more lack of source code, etc...

 Mark Willis, mwillisspamKILLspamnwlink.com, hardware addict at large <G>

Walter Banks wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\07\24@174320 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
remember Microsoft = BLOATWARE and sloppy programming.

1998\07\24@203008 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 03:07:27PM -0400, Andy Kunz wrote:

> I would like to have X-based stuff.  Tools would be:
>
>         C Compiler system (compiler, assembler, linker) - should make files

Our PICC compiler is already available under Linux, and an X-Windows GUI will be
ready in 2-3 months.

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: EraseMEclydespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger clydespamspam_OUThtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3354 2411 +61 7 3354 2422
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

1998\07\24@205913 by Scott Dattalo
face
flavicon
face
Clyde Smith-Stubbs wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 03:07:27PM -0400, Andy Kunz wrote:
>
> > I would like to have X-based stuff.  Tools would be:
> >
> >         C Compiler system (compiler, assembler, linker) - should make files
>
> Our PICC compiler is already available under Linux, and an X-Windows GUI will
be
> ready in 2-3 months.

Is there a demo available? I just visited your web page and saw only the
dos based demos.

1998\07\25@015711 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Scott Dattalo wrote:
> Is there a demo available? I just visited your web page and saw only the
> dos based demos.

No, but the operation of the compiler on Linux is just like the DOS
command line version. It's built from exactly the same source (we actually
develop on Unix then cross-compile to DOS).

The upcoming GUI is written in Java, and will run on Windoze, Linux and
other Unix platforms. A demo of it will be available in the not-too-distant
future.


--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: @spam@clydeKILLspamspamhtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger KILLspamclydeKILLspamspamhtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3354 2411 +61 7 3354 2422
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

1998\07\25@061019 by Tom Handley

picon face
  Walter, the recent issue of EE-Times (20 July / 1017) has an article
about the `grass-roots' effort with LINUX. Your timing in asking this sounds
like you have read the article but just in case... A "packed house" with
over 1000 LINUX users met in Silicon Valley to praise and complain about the
current state of LINUX. Mr. LINUX, Linus Torvalds, sat on a panel with
Sunil Saxena from Intel's UNIX lab. Intel pledged support with their 64-Bit
processor. Engineers are fed up with Microsoft Windows. One big issue was
trying to convince EDA vendors to support LINUX. At the recent DAC, Cadence
and Synopsys got a real `heads-up' as far as the preference for LINUX. They
mentioned the Java T-shirt that says; "In a world without fences, who needs
Gates?". Very appropriate ;-)

  I don't use LINUX and my UNIX days seem distant. I finally was dragged
`kicking and screaming' from my keyboard and have finally gained the eye-
hand coordination to use a mouse and deal with Windows... The last OS I
ported was CP/M... I'm a hardware guy and I just use the tools which happen
to run under Windows. I really hate DOS tools. If such tools were available
under LINUX and X-Windows, I would be very interested.

  - Tom

At 01:03 PM 7/24/98 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\07\25@062706 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Clyde Smith-Stubbs wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Scott Dattalo wrote:
> > Is there a demo available? I just visited your web page and saw only the
> > dos based demos.
>
> No, but the operation of the compiler on Linux is just like the DOS
> command line version. It's built from exactly the same source (we actually
> develop on Unix then cross-compile to DOS).

Well, could you sell the compiled UNIX command line version as is at the
same price as the DOS version, now ? And does you compiler support inline
assembly directly or does one need an external assembler purchased
separately (and which one) ? imho this would also be free market research
for $0, as you would be able to find out how many people are really buying
the product.

thank you for sharing this information with us,

       Peter

PS: I'd like to remind that there is a freeware IDE for Linux in character
mode, based on curses, that somewhat emulates a former Borland product
series. It is very popular, but has no support, and not perfect.

1998\07\25@091126 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Sat, Jul 25, 1998 at 01:16:37PM +0000, Peter L. Peres wrote:

> Well, could you sell the compiled UNIX command line version as is at the
> same price as the DOS version, now ? And does you compiler support inline

Yes, the Linux version is priced the same as the DOS version. In the past
we have priced Unix versions (e.g. Solaris, HP-UX) higher than DOS for
several reasons, but particularly the low volume of sales and the different
nature of the market. The Linux market closely parallels the Windows market,
i.e. it runs on the same hardware, has a similar cost and is popular with
individuals and small companies. Therefore there is no reason to price a Linux
version differently to a DOS/Windows version.

> assembly directly or does one need an external assembler purchased

Yes, inline assembler is supported, we include a full macro assembler (which
can be used stand-alone).

> separately (and which one) ? imho this would also be free market research
> for $0, as you would be able to find out how many people are really buying
> the product.

Not quite sure what you're driving at there, but the enquiry rate has
already demonstrated a significant demand for Linux-hosted tools.

> thank you for sharing this information with us,

No problem, I've been using Unix for around 23 years, and am more than happy
to see an alternative to Windows being pushed.

Cheers, Clyde

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: spamBeGoneclydespamBeGonespamhtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger TakeThisOuTclydeEraseMEspamspam_OUThtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3354 2411 +61 7 3354 2422
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

1998\07\25@132652 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Clyde Smith-Stubbs wrote:
- snip -
> > I wrote:
> > separately (and which one) ? imho this would also be free market research
> > for $0, as you would be able to find out how many people are really buying
> > the product.
>
> Not quite sure what you're driving at there, but the enquiry rate has
> already demonstrated a significant demand for Linux-hosted tools.

I did not know that you were doing this for a while already, I had assumed
that you were in the 'research' phase.

I think that you have just won a new customer, thanks,

       Peter

1998\07\26@030632 by Matthias Granberry

flavicon
face
No, but it is available for 2-3 times the DOS price.

1998\07\26@073910 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
Now that's plain silly to charge more than the dos version. in fact the
overhead of a linux version is alot less than the dos version as all the
development tools are free of cost.  I'll just use the dos version under
DOSEMU or not use it at all, besides there are better tools for linux in
the GNU/freeware arena.



On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Matthias Granberry wrote:

> No, but it is available for 2-3 times the DOS price.
>

1998\07\26@103603 by Alex Holden

picon face
> The release of Windows 98 has revitalized Linux interest by
> many development companies.  If development tools were
> available under Linux would this be the operating system of
> choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
> ported to run under Linux?

I have to admit I personally would be unlikely to buy any commercial, non
open source software, unless it was very reasonably priced. However, a lot
of people are switching to Linux not only because of it's freeness, but
because it is so much more stable and powerful than NT. I suppose with the
money they save on the annual Redmond tax, they could afford to spend some
money on commercial Linux software too.

On the other hand, I definitely would like to see more free GPL'd PIC
development tools under Linux. Things I'd like to see most of all are a
decent simulator and C compiler which understand MP compatible file
formats and syntax. Others have also said they want an IDE as well, and
there are many free IDEs available which could easily be adapted to use
the pic development tools.
I'd even be prepared to help out myself. I don't usually have much free
time to spare for development, but I could help out with testing
and debugging. I could also provide web space for the project if
needed when my new website comes online in a couple of weeks time (look
out for it- http://www.linuxhacker.org).
We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago, but nothing came of it,
probably because most of us are too busy with other things to start a big
project like a simulator or compiler.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
---------- http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1532/ ---------

1998\07\26@195515 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Alex Holden wrote:


>
> On the other hand, I definitely would like to see more free GPL'd PIC
> development tools under Linux. Things I'd like to see most of all are a
> decent simulator and C compiler which understand MP compatible file
> formats and syntax. Others have also said they want an IDE as well, and
> there are many free IDEs available which could easily be adapted to use
> the pic development tools.

Alex,

I would like to see more GPL'd PIC development tools too. So I'm working
on a simulator. If you (or any one else) wish to be involved - with
either coding or testing, then send me a private e-mail.

Just to arouse some interest, here are some of the features:

 o Simulates the midrange, 14-bit core instruction set.
 o Supports the WDT and interrupts. Other peripherals like EEPROM and A/D
   are designed but not yet implemented.
 o Register dumps, Disassemble program memory.
 o All breakpoint types are supported:
     Execution
     Read a register
     Write a register
     hooks are in place for boolean type of breakpoints (e.g. break if
     the pc is less than 100 and 8 is written to the INDF)
 o Continuous trace - Everything is traced: instruction execution,
   register reads and writes, stack accesses, interrupts, indirect
   modification of the status register, etc.
 o Step, step over, run, and step backwards.
 o Simulate more than one processor at a time (this is not yet complete).
 o Stimulation files (not complete) will support bit, multi-bit, and
   analog stimuli.

Preliminary tests have shown that the simulation is astonishingly fast. On
my 90Mhz pentium slug I'm able to simulate about 1 million cycles in  3 or
4 seconds! I've made recent optimizations that promise to even improve
upon this.

I still have a whole lot of work left. Some of the major areas are:
 o Support the 12 and 16-bit cores
 o Add a user interface (I'm embarassed to show you what I've got now)
 o Add support for symbol files

I plan to give the initial release to James Bowman this Thursday. If
anyone else cares for a copy then send me a private email.

Scott

1998\07\26@213706 by James Cameron

picon face
Walter Banks wrote:
> What tools would you like to see
> ported to run under Linux?

None at all.  I'll support coding efforts that result in GPL'd source
code, but "porting" implies taking proprietary code and recompiling it
to run on Linux.  I don't see this as useful.  If the costs of
proprietary code are a match to my project, then I'll choose that.

I'm about to add 12C509 support to James Bowman's gpasm.

I've used MPASM within Linux's DOS emulator.  It works fine, but is
sluggish by comparison to gpasm.  No source code either.

I'm patiently waiting for GEDA to get off the ground.

--
James Cameron                              (RemoveMEjames.cameronspamTakeThisOuTdigital.com)
Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 000 446 800

1998\07\27@133639 by Pavel Korensky

flavicon
face
At 13:03 24.7.1998 -0400, you wrote:

>The release of Windows 98 has revitalized Linux interest by
>many development companies.  If development tools were
>available under Linux would this be the operating system of
>choice for development.  What tools would you like to see
>ported to run under Linux?

Everything :-) Especially ASM+C+Simulator combo, running in X-Windows
environment. But console oriented IDE is also OK.
Nice idea, maybe I will be able to delete WinCrap some day.

Best regards

PavelK

**************************************************************************
* Pavel Korensky                                                         *
* DATOR3 LAN Services spol. s r.o.                                       *
* Modranska 1895/17, 143 00, Prague 4, Czech Republic                    *
*                                                                        *
* PGP Key fingerprint:  F3 E1 AE BC 34 18 CB A6  CC D0 DA 9E 79 03 41 D4 *
*                                                                        *
* SUMMA SCIENTIA - NIHIL SCIRE                                           *
**************************************************************************

1998\07\27@134710 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

a good C compiler with a lot of library functions would be welcome. An IDE
would be also an advantage, including some kind of programming device.

Imre


On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Walter Banks wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\07\27@151556 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
GCC can have extensions written for it  so that the GCC C compiler will
act as your pic compiler. or just use yacc and whip one up.


On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\07\27@174028 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
"Timothy D. Gray" <RemoveMEtimgrayEraseMEspamEraseMELAMBDANET.COM> wrote:
> GCC can have extensions written for it  so that the GCC C compiler will
> act as your pic compiler.

GCC is heavily biased toward code generation for 32-bit architectures.  It's
fairly difficult to write a backend for GCC for 16-bit processors, let alone
8.

GCC also generally assumes that the return stack is in main RAM, which is not
true of PICs.

Backends have been written for the 6809, 68HC11, and PDP-11, but those
are all much closer to the architectural assumptions of GCC.

I won't say that it's impossible to retarget GCC to the PIC, but if anyone
succeeds in doing so, such that GCC can be productively used on a common
PIC (e.g., PIC16F84), I'll gladly pay them $100 for it.

> or just use yacc and whip one up.

Just like that, huh?  Yacc's quite a useful tool, but even with Yacc a C
compiler isn't just a quick hack.

1998\07\27@184946 by Matthias Granberry

flavicon
face
       Eric Smith <RemoveMEericspam_OUTspamKILLspamBROUHAHA.COM> writes:

> I won't say that it's impossible to retarget GCC to the PIC, but if anyone
> succeeds in doing so, such that GCC can be productively used on a common
> PIC (e.g., PIC16F84), I'll gladly pay them $100 for it.

if the asked $100, I'd be the first to stick RMS on them for license
violations, although I don't think that GCC is suited to a machine w/ under 1K
of RAM.  You might do it, but it would be a helluva stretch.

> > or just use yacc and whip one up.
>
> Just like that, huh?  Yacc's quite a useful tool, but even with Yacc a C
> compiler isn't just a quick hack.

       You'd be surprised what you can do with yacc/bison.  That is probably
the most sensible approach to a C compiler under linux that I have heard yet.

1998\07\27@202920 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
I wrote:
> I won't say that it's impossible to retarget GCC to the PIC, but if anyone
> succeeds in doing so, such that GCC can be productively used on a common
> PIC (e.g., PIC16F84), I'll gladly pay them $100 for it.

Matthias Granberry <RemoveMEgonffTakeThisOuTspamspamWINDMILLBBS.COM> wrote:
> if the asked $100, I'd be the first to stick RMS on them for license
> violations

Well, you haven't read the GPL very closely, since it most definitely does
allow GPL'd software to be sold.  It's actually encouraged.  Cygnus sells
their GNUpro suite for many thousands of dollars.  So I don't think you'd get
much satisfaction from complaining to RMS.

It also doesn't preclude my giving money to them on a voluntary basis, which
is what I was offering.

>         You'd be surprised what you can do with yacc/bison.  That is probably
> the most sensible approach to a C compiler under linux that I have heard yet.

I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I use yacc and bison myself. My point
was that there is a lot more to a good C compiler than a lexer and a parser.
However, if you want to prove me wrong and write a good GPL'd C compiler for
the PIC as a quick hack (using yacc and bison if you want), I'd be just as
willing to pay $100 for that.

Cheers,
Eric

1998\07\28@014645 by Matthias Granberry

flavicon
face
Eric Smith <EraseMEericspamspamspamBeGoneBROUHAHA.COM> writes:

> Well, you haven't read the GPL very closely, since it most definitely does
> allow GPL'd software to be sold.  It's actually encouraged.  Cygnus sells
> their GNUpro suite for many thousands of dollars.  So I don't think you'd get
> much satisfaction from complaining to RMS.
>
> It also doesn't preclude my giving money to them on a voluntary basis, which
> is what I was offering.
>

Ahh, that would be OK, as that is how a good many companies with penguin logos
stay afloat, but I  mistook your meaning.


> I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I use yacc and bison myself. My point
> was that there is a lot more to a good C compiler than a lexer and a parser.
> However, if you want to prove me wrong and write a good GPL'd C compiler for
> the PIC as a quick hack (using yacc and bison if you want), I'd be just as
> willing to pay $100 for that.

I didn't say that it would be a quickhack, but it would not be a bad start.

I actually meant that comment as something to encourage people to pursue
something other than a backend of GCC to a pic microchip.  I think GCC is a bit
too much for a pic, but who knows... there is a gcc port to the hp48's..


1998\07\28@064822 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       I also vote for good old reliable command-line driven tools
using standard I/O that can be run through a terminal and or through a
filter as someone else previously stated.  Put all the bells and
whistles in the actual functionality of the assembler/compiler and not
in the fake flexibility of some GUI-driven monstrosity.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

1998\07\28@091411 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I use yacc and bison myself. My point
>was that there is a lot more to a good C compiler than a lexer and a parser.
>However, if you want to prove me wrong and write a good GPL'd C compiler for
>the PIC as a quick hack (using yacc and bison if you want), I'd be just as
>willing to pay $100 for that.

Can I brag a little?

In my college days, the prof (a Bell Labs employee on loan) offered an A to
anyone in his compiler design class who could *successfully* write a yacc
implementation of a simple language he called "LL" (three different
variants were needed, supporting only simple stuff, arrays, and last
everything including FP support).

It was easier for me writing a Z-80 run-time library and a compiler to
generate Z-80 assembly source in Pascal (I used a TRS-80 M4 and Roy
Soltoff's L-DOS toolset).  I did the FP version by creating a virtual
machine on the VAX.  (It was a VLIW machine, before there was such a thing).

I got the A anyway.  Nobody who tried yacc got anywhere significant.  I was
actually the only guy in the class of about 12 who actually had a compiler
that worked.

Still have the source code, and I've actually referred to it since it was
pretty ingenious in places.

And it was done 2 weeks before the deadline.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\07\29@192154 by James Cameron

picon face
gpasm is a Linux assembler for PICs.

I wrote on Monday 27th July:
> I'm about to add 12C509 support to James Bowman's gpasm.

I've done that now, and provided the patch to James for inclusion in the
next release.  If you are truly desperate, you can ask for the patch.
It only took a couple of hours.

Support added included;
       - 16f84 (it only knew 16c84 before),
       - 12c508
       - 12c509

http://reality.sgi.com/jamesb/gpasm/

Now, if the other 12c5xx parts are the same core instruction set as the
12c508, then they will be easily supported.  I don't use them, nor do I
have the data sheets.

--
James Cameron                              (RemoveMEjames.cameronKILLspamspamdigital.com)
Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 000 446 800

1998\07\30@030135 by Aschwin Gopalan

flavicon
face
Clyde Smith-Stubbs <clydeSTOPspamspamspam_OUTHTSOFT.COM> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 25, 1998 at 01:16:37PM +0000, Peter L. Peres wrote:
>
> > Well, could you sell the compiled UNIX command line version as is at the
> > same price as the DOS version, now ? And does you compiler support inline
>
> Yes, the Linux version is priced the same as the DOS version. In the past
> we have priced Unix versions (e.g. Solaris, HP-UX) higher than DOS for
> several reasons, but particularly the low volume of sales and the different
> nature of the market. The Linux market closely parallels the Windows market,
> i.e. it runs on the same hardware, has a similar cost and is popular with
> individuals and small companies. Therefore there is no reason to price a Linux
> version differently to a DOS/Windows version.
>
> > assembly directly or does one need an external assembler purchased
>
> Yes, inline assembler is supported, we include a full macro assembler (which
> can be used stand-alone).

We have purchased the DOS version of Hi-Tech C
a while ago. I would really like to use the linux version, since I have
a DOS box sitting here only for doing PIC developement at the moment.
Everything else I do I do under linux. But: I couln't find a programmer
which will do other PICs than 16C84 for linux (we use the 14000 a lot and
will start to use the 17 series soon).

Another question, directly to Clyde:
When we find a programmer, is there a possibility to crossgrade to the linux
version without have to purchase a completely new license?

Anyway, It's interesting to hear that you develop this thing under unix.
It's really good, I should have known :-)

Bye,

Aschwin

1998\07\30@063025 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 09:07:17AM +0200, Aschwin Gopalan wrote:

> Another question, directly to Clyde:
> When we find a programmer, is there a possibility to crossgrade to the linux
> version without have to purchase a completely new license?

Yes, it is. I will have to check what policy we have established on this,
but it's certainly not a whole new licence.

Cheers, Clyde

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: spamBeGoneclydeSTOPspamspamEraseMEhtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger KILLspamclydespamBeGonespamhtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3354 2411 +61 7 3354 2422
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...