Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Richard Erlacher
10/27/11 09:57
Read: 595 times
Denver, Co
USA


 
#184391 - Wait a minute ... You've got this wrong ...
Responding to: Per Westermark's previous message
Per Westermark said:
Most manufacturers releases evaluation versions at the same time as their full-version compilers. So they are up-to-date.

Next - I would not want to try to evaluate a product (i.e. compare with other manufacturers tools) by trying to break through the evaluation tool limitations. Besides taking much too much time, it would not be relevant for a real comparison. The only reason for doing this kind of work, would be to cheat the manufacturer of the money for a commercial version of the tool.

Nobody's trying to cheat the manufacturer out of anything.

By up-to-date, I mean supporting the available chips that it's theoretically supposed to support. If I buy a compiler that supports some chips in the 805x series, one of the first things I look for is whether it supports the one that I'm currently planning to use. When I say "up-to-date" I mean supporting the currently available technology, and not just the ones to which the software vendor has "gotten around" to including in the compiler's repertoire. That, of course has little to do with the specific limitation that I was suggesting could be circumvented. It would not be difficult to write the linker in the eval package such that it would produce runnable code in any region of the code memory space without removing that 2kB or 4kB size restriction. Some vendors simply haven't bothered.

If a serious evaluation requires unlimited tools, then it would be much better to contact the manufacturer and request a special demo build. Maybe a time-limited version with a hardware lock. Or maybe contact a company close-by that have the commercial version, and have them build a full-size project.

It doesn't require unlimited tools, per se. It does require that the code for evaluation be runnable on all the available targets. If a compiler costing as much as the one under discussion claims to support 805x chips, it should fully support all of them. If the demo package doesn't allow "limited" trial on any member of the 805x family, for example, it should clearly say so in the documentation of the evaluation package. Some vendors simply don't bother.

Next thing is that most people do not go through life wondering about past decisions. When a decision is made, it is made. Only when there is a reason for a new decision would it be meaningful to spend time reevaluating known facts. Living life in past tense don't build any future. You either use the tools you have, or you get new ones. Thinking about what tools you _could_ have used will not improve the code quality or speed up the delivery times.


You're right, with the exception that, particularly in cases such as mine, a decision has to be made in conjunction with each project.

I don't advocate defeating the demonstration limits for the purpose of producing deliverable work product. I do think it's worth considering such an approach if a timely evaluation for use with a chip that presently doesn't have a memory map that will function trivially with the demo as it's provided. KEIL, unlike SDCC, thinks that "the next release", when the desired IC will be supported, can happen two years later, which won't meet anybody's current need. There are other matters, also dealing with simple omissions by the compiler vendor(s) but those can be discussed under a separate heading.

RE


List of 53 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Linking C programs with Keil evaluation      David Prentice      09/06/11 11:02      
   Eval Tools.      Michael Karas      09/06/11 11:15      
      That makes sense      David Prentice      09/06/11 12:11      
         It's not that much more useable      Richard Erlacher      10/25/11 18:44      
            Work-around for evaluation version limitations?      Per Westermark      10/25/11 23:50      
            Marked -1      Michael Karas      10/26/11 06:26      
               I'm not so sure you're right here ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 07:55      
                  Irrelevant if people have ideas - should they be debated?      Per Westermark      10/26/11 08:19      
                     There's a reason I haven't done it ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:36      
                        Would not represent a valid evaluation      Per Westermark      10/27/11 02:00      
                           Wait a minute ... You've got this wrong ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 09:57      
                     One question      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:43      
                        What about the guy who simply wants to evaluate the product?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:05      
                           sometimes coding situations and requirements differ      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 18:57      
                        How would you like it?      Andy Neil      10/26/11 14:13      
                           That's not what I'm asking them to do      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 19:17      
                              A message from the OP.      David Prentice      10/27/11 03:55      
                                 I don't supply the compiler ...      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:08      
                        Wrong view on evaluation tools      Per Westermark      10/27/11 03:32      
                           as I've said before, where you sit determines what you see      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 10:47      
                              Still failing to recognize reason for hole in code map      Per Westermark      10/27/11 12:33      
                                 You missed my point again      Richard Erlacher      10/27/11 15:35      
                                    Simulate or use Logic Analyser      David Prentice      10/28/11 05:41      
                                       ramblings      Erik Malund      10/28/11 07:51      
                                       Using evaluation software and hardware      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 09:44      
                                          The above would be true if....      Erik Malund      10/28/11 10:24      
                                             You don't seriously believe that, do you?      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:54      
                                                A thief is a thief        Per Westermark      10/29/11 07:01      
                                                   Indeed...        Michael Karas      10/29/11 09:47      
                                                   FIrst of all, I don't advocate theivery      Richard Erlacher      10/29/11 14:46      
                                                      and more mumbo jumbo in the reply      Erik Malund      10/29/11 15:47      
                                                      Can _you_ not read debugger output?      Per Westermark      10/29/11 17:39      
                                          8255      Andy Peters      10/28/11 13:26      
                                             Yes, but they're still shipped on some 805x trainer boards      Richard Erlacher      10/28/11 18:42      
                                             Just sayin'      Michael Karas      10/29/11 05:50      
                  Square Wheels for the Car      Michael Karas      10/26/11 10:06      
                     I disagree ... not that that should surprise anyone      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 10:54      
                        eval and evaluation      Erik Malund      10/26/11 11:25      
                           Yes, if only they were useful ...      Richard Erlacher      10/26/11 12:31      
      Also "LPC900 Studio"      Andy Neil      09/06/11 12:32      
         They all seem crippled      David Prentice      09/06/11 14:22      
            comments      Erik Malund      09/06/11 16:17      
            They all seem crippled      Andy Neil      09/06/11 16:22      
               Yes ... SDCC ... the obvious solution      Richard Erlacher      09/08/11 08:30      
                  what's obvious about it      Erik Malund      09/08/11 09:00      
                     Why not?      Andy Neil      09/08/11 10:48      
                        reasons      Erik Malund      09/08/11 10:59      
                           Unfortunately      Andy Neil      09/08/11 14:13      
                              re Keil      Erik Malund      09/09/11 07:13      
                                 15 years ago?      Maarten Brock      09/09/11 09:28      
                                    OK, maybe not      Erik Malund      09/09/11 09:48      
            reasonable price      Erik Malund      09/07/11 03:41      
            raisonance is 4k with no code offset      Marshall Brown      10/25/11 13:59      

Back to Subject List