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

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Per Westermark
10/29/11 17:39
Read: 453 times

#184437 - Can _you_ not read debugger output?
Responding to: Richard Erlacher's previous message
Richard Erlacher said:
Yes, I can imagine ... That would leave no way at all for a person to get any picture at all of what sort of code the compiler produces, though, wouldn't it?

Any person who can't look at the disassembled instructions in the debugger and see if the code is good or bad is incompetent and would not manage to decide with an assembler listing either.

Are you saying that you are unable to figure out if code is good or bad from the debugger window?

As an alternative, they could make it possible to run their code on the desired target. They've chosen not to do the latter, haven't they?

The majority of processors out there are based on very few cores. So with 99+ percent probability, you can test the code on a processor with more code space. Since the limitation is in amount of generated code, and not in max size of flash memory, you should even be able to run the simulator with the specific processor, but with the description of the processor modified to claim more code memory available.

Wouldn't the rest of the software still prevent the practical use in a commercial sense? After all, who wants to generate two linkable objects of each module, run them through his own linker, and only then load them into the target. Further, that would still leave the miscreant without the ability to use the simulator and some of the other "features", would it not?

You blame Keil for having a large hole in the code map. If they didn't had such a code window, there would not be any need for two linkable objects. So without the hole in the code map, there would be zero incentive to buy the commercial edition. Was that hard to figure out? Really?

Is the demo linker the only "protection" that KEIL has built into their demo package? I had the impression that there were other features that also didn't work on larger code bodies and limited the location in the memory map.

You can find out yourself. But mainly, you have a gap in the emitted code space, and a limit to the amount of code linked and debugged (ignoring the size of the hole). And you don't have access to their floating-point library. And you have to look at the assembler instructions in the debugger - no assembly listing, since it would be too easy to take the assembly listing and post-process to glue together multiple lists into a full-size binary.

As I said before, I suspect that those who are smart, skilled, and diligent enough to do what I suggested have already thought of it themselves, or, much more likely, those bent on stealing someone else's work product are too lazy to do all that work just to be able to load a small code snipped into their target.

So why are you suggesting things that you think skilled people already knows about? Don't you realize that you are also telling the slightly less skilled people things they shouldn't be told?

So Richard: Out with it in clear text.

Do you think it is correct to talk about licence circumvention? Yes or no?

After all, there are other KEIL features that don't work outside the demo range. I suspect there are other things that KEIL could do if they really wanted to (a) enable people evaluating their product for a specific purpose or use in a chip not presently supported by their linker, but that they have simply chosen not to do that. The result is that all one in that situation can evaluate is their GUI.

You don't need Keil support to build binaries for processors not in Keils database. You can add your own processors.

Real people who are evaluating their tools don't see too much problems. Why do you? You aren't even interested in C compilers...

List of 53 messages in thread
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