🚀 go-pugleaf

Ken Ryan wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > How does TI's C32 compiler compare to ADI's SHARC compiler? Anything
> > special I should know about either?
> >
> 
> TI has some of the best compiler and debugger tools I've ever used
> ('c30, 'c31, 'c40 are the variants I've used).  Analog Devices has
> some of the worst.  ADI's compiler generates code that runs, for
> very small values of runs, plus generates a fair amount of unused
> code (note: we haven't had the guts to turn on the optimizer for the

> latest SHARC compiler; when we did for the older 21020s the optimized
> code just plain did not work).  The debugger is worse than useless;
> many random freezes requiring power cycling of both PC and target,
> outright hostile user interface (no scripting, no memory of values
> previously entered dialog boxes or even initializing the dialog boxes
> to something even valid, a memory window where you don't dare touch the
> scrollbar since it covers the entire 32-bit address space and doesn't
> know about jump scrolling, can't even *load* the C code unless most of
> the modules have symbols turned off).  I can go on but I'll just get my
> blood pressure up.
> 
> And don't bother with the White Mountain "3rd party" emulator.  We just
> bought one, and discovered we paid a ton of money for exactly the
> same piece of crap (I suspect they wrote it).
> 
> And don't figure ADI is going to update or fix anything either.  It's
> been like this for at least 3 years now.
> 
> Definitely if the TI chips will work for you they're the way to go.
> It's
> too bad the SHARC is such a nifty integrated little chip or we'd have
> punted it long ago.
> 
> --
> Kenneth Ryan                    ryan@oscsystems.com     M/S: E-15
> Orbital Sciences Corp.          (301) 353-1714          20301 Century
> Blvd.
>    / Fairchild Defense          FAX:     -8679          Germantown, MD
> 20874

I'm curious to see how the gold release of ADI's Visual DSP looks. The
original SHARC compiler is based on Gnu C. The new compiler comes from a
company in Scotland, and hopefully will be more robust. One might think
that an Open-Sourced Gnu compiler would be more robust because more
people are available to fix bugs, but ADI doesn't make the source for
their modifications available online where anyone can download it. (They
have an FTP site at ftp://ftp.analog.com, so the resources are there.)
One has to pay them the media and S&H costs to get a copy, and I'm sure
most customers aren't aware that the GPL grants them right to the
source.

I recently tripped across an FTP site that's ported Gnu C to the
C3x/C4x. The URL is ftp://ongaonga.chch.cri.nz/pub/c4x/

-- 
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
mailto:shiva@CompuServe.COM
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/
http://sewnsurf.home.ml.org/
http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi (Death to Spam!)