Re: [ECOS] How do you like eCos

["Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe at larwe dot com>]

Hi Grant,

> > and what is your target CPU/architecture?
>
>ARM7TDMI (custom board using a Samsung KS32C5000).

My intended target is very similar - Cirrus Logic EP7212 (Maverick, hence 
my pun). How did you manage to build gcc for thumb? I gave up on this task.

> > The reason I ask this is because I have one very major gripe
> > with the free open-source level of support from Red Hat, and
> > that is that there is no version unification, no known point
> > from which to start,
>
>I'm not sure what you mean.  There are "official" releases: the
>current one is 1.3.1, and you also have access to CVS sources.

Well, I was thinking more about the toolchain than the OS itself when I 
wrote that. I went through perhaps 80-100 full builds of binutils, gcc and 
insight before finally concluding that (a) the instructions for arm-thumb 
on Red Hat's site are just wrong, and (b) the arm-thumb target seems to be 
broken in all current and all past versions of gcc. RH's site talks about 
the 20000113 gcc snapshot as working - why the heck could they not have 
archived that version? A CVS checkout of that date still doesn't build 
properly, maybe the repository got corrupted in some way.

> > and every time one hits a problem one has to start debugging it
> > from the ground up.
>
>Are you saying that you would prefer that official releases
>came out more often?

Well, that would be nice :) But realistically, I am asking for publication 
somewhere of a complete working set of tools and a set of OS sources that 
can be built with those tools, even if the whole package is rather elderly. 
With that to start from, at least one can (for example) debug one's circuit 
while cautiously trying to build and use more recent versions of tools and 
OS sources. It's very frustrating to be where I am now, where nothing 
builds quite the way it's supposed to and I can't trust any component.

>over the years.  The nice thing (for me) about using the gnu
>toolchain is the lack of a learning curve.  I've been using gcc
>et al for almost 15 years, so it was nice that I didn't have to
>learn yet another set of compiler, assembler, andlinker options

Frankly, I'd rather not learn any compiler, assembler and linker options or 
makefile syntax. Working on Windows or OS/2 or DOS, I prefer to use an IDE 
to select source files and generate my makefiles, then work at the command 
line for builds and source editing. But that's not germane to the issue and 
I'm not complaining about having to deepen my knowledge of gcc.

>I've never used Windows for embedded development, though I used
>DOS briefly many years ago.  I've always found SW development
>under Unix to be easier than what I've observed other Windows

I don't know about you, but we have standardized on OrCAD for our schematic 
capture and PCB layout, mainly because our factories use it. It's just so 
handy to be able to Alt-Tab away from the source window to the schematic, 
and to develop circuit and software simultaneously.

Additionally, with our current DOS/Win9x development system (actually it's 
an ancient version of gcc, compiled for a Win32 host), I can carry all the 
source and schematics on my laptop, so when I go home I have access to it 
and can answer midnight questions from our Oriental factory, build 
emergency test versions of software to deal with production issues, etc.

>I don't buy DOS-only hardware.  Except for that one HC11

We have no choice, dealing with Taiwanese chip vendors. The chips are cheap 
and often work, but the development systems are unbelievably bad. I am 
trying to wean us off them, but we still have a lot of hardware round the 
place that uses proprietary parallel port controls.


Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
Got any Commodore 16 or VIC-20 hardware, cartridges, tapes?
Visit http://www.larwe.com/vintage/
================================================
Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/