1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

PIC development on Linux

Discussion in 'Embedded' started by Tim Wescott, May 5, 2014.

  1. Tim Wescott

    hamilton Guest

    I would like to see OpenOCD work at all.

    Please share your results.

    hamilton, May 7, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tim Wescott

    Tim Wescott Guest

    I've been using it since at least 2008 for my projects, and 2011 on
    behalf of my customers. There's always been the usual underlying
    irritation with development tools of getting everything to play nice
    together, but I've never failed to get it to work.

    I'm using OpenOCD with ARM Cortex cored processors (M0, M3 & M4) from ST
    and Luminary, using Eclipse as my IDE talking to GDB for integrated
    debugging, all under Linux.

    One of my current customers takes the code that I develop on this Linux
    machine, compiles it under Cygwin on Windows, and loads it using OpenOCD,
    again on Windows.

    I love it. It has tried to let me down once or twice, but I've been
    stern with it, and it has relented every time.
    Tim Wescott, May 7, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tim Wescott

    David Brown Guest

    That's fair enough - for some people, and for some uses, a PIC will be
    more convenient and easier to use than a Cortex device. So you use it
    because it saves you time and effort.

    My argument is against picking a PIC to save a few cents on the chip -
    not against picking a PIC because you know it is the best device for the
    job, or because you know it will save you time, effort and money.

    (I also particularly dislike the PIC as a processor, and I dislike the
    tools and being unable to program them in normal C - but that's a
    personal bias rather than a sound economic argument.)
    David Brown, May 8, 2014
  4. Tim Wescott

    David Brown Guest

    OpenOCD 0.8.0 has a number of new features, and of course supports even
    more devices. There are also good Windows builds, and the it's easy to
    install the Windows drivers (at least for FTDI-based dongles - I haven't
    tried any others). No cygwin in sight.

    The only trouble I have with it is that currently mass erase is not
    working on Kinetis Kxx chips, but I hope that will get sorted soon.

    I haven't used OpenOCD much for debugging yet, but I use it to program
    some K10's.
    I avoid cygwin like the plague - ming based toolchains (and other
    software) are faster, avoid the cygwin1.dll pains, and work better with
    windows-style filenames.

    Have you tried clang for compilation, or just gcc? I gather ARM has
    dropped Keil as the compiler for the ADS and is moving to clang.
    David Brown, May 8, 2014
  5. Tim Wescott

    Tim Wescott Guest

    Cygwin is just there so that the makefiles will work right.
    Never heard of it. gcc works fine for me.
    Tim Wescott, May 8, 2014
  6. Tim Wescott

    David Brown Guest

    (This is getting a bit off topic...)

    I left cygwin behind many years ago, for the mingw version of gcc and
    msys to provide the basic command-line utilities needed to make Windows
    look more like a real system. It is not quite as posix-compliant as
    cygwin, but the utilities like sed, cp, rm, touch, etc., are /much/
    faster than those in cygwin - making your makefiles faster.
    clang is the C (and C++) compiler part of LLVM, which is the other big
    open source compiler suite. I haven't used clang myself - I haven't had
    time - but I always like to keep track of these things. Certainly the
    competition, cooperation and comparisons between gcc and clang have lead
    to a number of big improvements in both tools (the success of llvm has
    pushed gcc to get link-time optimisation into mainstream usage, improved
    its error and warning handling especially for C++, and encouraged plugins).

    David Brown, May 8, 2014
  7. No, that's just good common sense. ;)
    Grant Edwards, May 8, 2014
  8. Tim Wescott

    Tim Wescott Guest

    I'm amused, because when I have my "Software Engineer" hat on, that's
    exactly my attitude. When I have my "Circuit Designer" hat on, my
    response to the PIC is "Hot Damn!". Ditto when I have my "buyer" hat on.

    It can be interesting to sit there alone in a quiet room and listen to
    the inter-departmental wars going on inside my head. I used to get
    involved with these when I worked in industry, and was just disgusted all
    around because it all seemed like pointless turf battles. Now that I've
    had more than a few of these struggles happen internally, I have more
    sympathy for all the participants when it happens in a big company.
    Tim Wescott, May 10, 2014
  9. Tim Wescott

    David Brown Guest

    I usually have my "software engineer" hat on, and sometimes my "IT
    manager" hat. My "circuit engineer" hat sits on the shelf most of the
    time, and I don't think I have a "buyer" hat at all. Of course,
    sometimes I have to were my "salesman" hat and listen to customers who
    really want an 8051 device...
    I can appreciate that. And I understand that the popularity of PICs is
    not just down to DIP packages and good marketing. But I like my
    "software engineer" hat, and don't like PICs :)
    David Brown, May 11, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.