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.

Replace Keil/ARM tools

Discussion in 'Embedded' started by MK, May 14, 2014.

  1. MK

    MK Guest

    For many years I've been using Keil/ARM's C compiler. Recently we
    started using the so called 'middleware' which was, to put it at its
    best, a rather mixed experience.

    They have just released (couple of months ago) version 5 of their tool
    set which includes a software component packaging system and the full
    ARM CMSIS API with drivers for many processors.

    The CMSIS API is rather limited but we gave it a good try and have
    developed a real system with it.

    We had seen the odd hard fault and today pinned it down - the UART
    driver is GARBAGE ! It uses a circular buffer and will fall over (hard
    fault the processor) every time an incoming message wraps round the end
    of the buffer. We didn't see it at first because the device sending data
    happens to use 8 byte packets but as soon as we started real testing for
    exceptions the fault was obvious.

    In this case we were able to extract the offending driver from the
    packaging system, work out what was wrong and fix it but our confidence
    level in code supplied by Keil/ARM is now zero.

    I'm kind of cross about this, since the price of this POS is about £7000
    with annual maintenance at about £1400.

    I'm ready to dump it.

    So, I'm looking for suggestions - it would be nice if we could still
    have decent debugging using the ARM ETM (yes we have a ULink Pro (£825)).

    Michael Kellett
     
    MK, May 14, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. MK

    Tauno Voipio Guest


    You cannot beat the price/preformance ratio of the GUN toolset,
    often calle by the C compiler as GCC. There are several ready-
    made sets for different compilation host computers, e.g. Yagarto.

    If you need an IDE, the same applies to Eclipse. It needs some
    work to set up, but there are good instructions in the Net.

    For debugging, I'm using an USB-JTAG dongle and OpenOCD
    with the GNU debugger, GDB.
     
    Tauno Voipio, May 14, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. MK

    Joe Chisolm Guest

    I second this. GNU/GCC, newlib, Eclipse and OpenOCD. They all play
    nicely together. There are volumes of information on the web about how
    to set this up. I started with Yagarto on Win XP. This was done because
    I had a dev board and LPCxpresso (code red). I then moved everything
    back to Linux with a built from source GCC tool set.

    In my option there is no reason to pay that kind of money for a tool set
    when you can spend maybe a day and get a free tool chain working. And
    you have complete control over the tool chain.
     
    Joe Chisolm, May 14, 2014
    #3
  4. MK

    Rich Webb Guest

    I've been happy with Rowley's CrossWorks. It's gcc-based but with
    custom libraries. There's a 30-day trial license and excellent support
    from Paul and Jon and the team.

    They're located in Glust... Gloust... Gloster... (hell) somewhere over
    on your side of the pond.
     
    Rich Webb, May 14, 2014
    #4
  5. MK

    Tim Wescott Guest

    And when something breaks, you end up spending about as much time fixing
    it as you would yelling at one of those $3000/year "service contract"
    places to return your emails. Without, note, having to spend $3000/year
    for the privilege.
     
    Tim Wescott, May 14, 2014
    #5
  6. MK

    Tim Wescott Guest

    gnu/Eclipse/OpenOCD.

    Why pay someone else a big pile of money to screw it up when you're
    perfectly capable of screwing it up for free?

    If you really feel like you need to shell out $$$ (or pounds sterling)
    for the privilege of being ignored by a customer service department, then
    go with CodeSourcery or one of the other gnu/gcc packagers out there.
     
    Tim Wescott, May 14, 2014
    #6
  7. MK

    David Brown Guest

    I agree with your principle here, though my experience with CodeSourcery
    is that you don't get ignored by a customer service department - you get
    answered by their technical guys, who are heavily involved in the real
    gcc development (CodeSourcery has always been a major part of gcc
    development - not just gcc repackagers).

    For many people, it can be easier to work with a pre-packaged
    gcc/eclipse system. Most of the Cortex manufacturers have a preferred
    tool (such as CodeSourcery, CodeRed, etc.), or make their own (such as
    Freescale CodeWarrior and now KDS), and most are cheap or free.
    Pre-packaged toolsets can make it easier to get started, and easier to
    get debugging to work, but can make it harder if you want to move to
    devices from a different manufacturer.

    But you have to have very good reasons these days before spending
    multiple K$ on toolchains from the "big" vendors, at least in the ARM
    world. When some of these (I mention no names) are known to have bigger
    support departments for handling licensing and dongle issues than for
    handling compiler questions, you have to wonder what you pay for.


    In a related issue, it seems that ARM is dropping their own proprietary
    compiler for future versions of their tools, and moving to llvm/clang
    (the other big open source compiler, and "competitor" to gcc). I don't
    know if they plan to fix their drivers or other code, and I doubt if
    they will reduce the price, but they expect to generate better code.
     
    David Brown, May 15, 2014
    #7
  8. MK

    boB Guest


    I've been using IAR EWARM for years now. I feel his pain about the
    ransom $ for support, etc. (or used to when we had issues) but it
    works pretty well usually.

    But doesn't IAR and Keil have 15 to 20% better code compiling
    efficiency for size and speed over GCC ? That is what I have heard
    anyway. You know how important that usually is when you don't have a
    lot of flash and RAM to begin with. We tend to use these parts to the
    max. (NXP ARM and Cortex M0/M3 parts). We use Code Red on the M0 part
    for another prouct that doesn't use all of the peripherals.

    boB
    K7IQ
     
    boB, May 15, 2014
    #8
  9. MK

    David Brown Guest

    Who told you that? IAR or Keil? Both are well known for using
    out-of-date versions of gcc and carefully picked samples to "prove" how
    much better they are than gcc. They are wary about using the same
    tricks against each others (or alternatives such as GHS), because they
    will get sued - but condemning gcc is fair game in the eyes of their
    marketing folk. No one independent can give any sort of objective
    comparisons, because the licensing for IAR, Keil (and most other
    commercial compilers for most targets) forbids it - and if anyone with
    any influence tried it, they would be sued.

    In reality, it is not unlikely that you will get 15-20% smaller and/or
    faster code with IAR or Keil than gcc for /some/ code samples - and gcc
    will be smaller and/or faster for others. The variation can be
    significant, and it can depend on small details in the code, and details
    in the code generation options. But there is certainly no general rule
    that these compilers have better code generation than gcc. If you need
    to know real numbers, you have no choice but to try it out yourself on
    your own code.
     
    David Brown, May 15, 2014
    #9
  10. MK

    Dave Nadler Guest

    I had really excellent support from CodeSourcery.
    They promptly fixed a bug I found and answered some
    difficult questions regarding MIPS startup.
    This was prior their acquisition by Mentor.

    As always your mileage may vary...
    Best Regards, Dave
     
    Dave Nadler, May 15, 2014
    #10
  11. Is the driver actually Keil's handiwork, or was it part of the chip
    vendor's support libraries? I haven't used MDK5, but in previous
    versions most of the bundled support software was simply the same
    libraries you could grab from the chip vendor's website (except slightly
    outdated). The quality of those libraries can be... /varying/.

    -a
     
    Anders.Montonen, May 15, 2014
    #11
  12. MK

    boB Guest


    Interesting info, thanks.
    I don't think that 15 to 20% was from either of those companies but
    was from a couple of people on the Yahoo LPC2000 tech list.

    I sure wish I could test the theory easily. I suppose I could strip
    the code way down to try part of it though. I may have to sometime.

    I hate having to pay ransom and especially when a hard drive fails and
    a software key goes kaput and IAR only replaces it once before they
    want the many years of back-ransom $$.

    I would think though that some third party or someone would have done
    what I would like to do and really compare 2 or 3 or those with a
    semi-large project. I forsee a lot of time and effort to do that even
    with C being a portable source format.

    I may try stripping a lot of code out and see if I can get my stuff to
    compile with GCC.

    boB
     
    boB, May 15, 2014
    #12
  13. MK

    Tim Wescott Guest

    I can see that I was hasty about condemning CodeSourcery.
     
    Tim Wescott, May 15, 2014
    #13
  14. MK

    Arlet Ottens Guest

    Keep in mind that compiler efficiency is not the only thing. There can
    also be quite a bit of performance difference in the compiler libraries.
     
    Arlet Ottens, May 15, 2014
    #14
  15. MK

    David Brown Guest

    And of course there are lots of other reasons to pick different
    compilers - different library features, different debuggers, different
    RTOS support, different profiling tools, different test quality
    certifications, etc.

    You can't get third-party comparisons that can give more than a rough
    idea - they cannot (normally) legally publish benchmarks from the big
    commercial compilers, and they cannot test with /your/ code. The best
    that can be done is a comparison with gcc, llvm, and "commercial
    compiler 1", "commercial compiler 2", etc.
     
    David Brown, May 15, 2014
    #15
  16. MK

    David Brown Guest

    I haven't had much contact with CodeSourcery since they were bought by
    Mentor, but it certainly seems successful enough. I heard only positive
    things about it - I think the CodeSourcery folks viewed it as letting
    them get on with the compiler development, and let the Mentor folks
    worry about sales, marketing, and where the next paycheck was coming from.
    If you look on the gcc contributors list, mailing lists, maintainers,
    release managers, etc., you will see CodeSourcery email addresses
    everywhere. I have never noticed a Code Red or Rowley entry - though of
    course they could be posting under different names, and I certainly
    don't see /everything/. But CodeSourcery are in a different class from
    other gcc toolchain packagers - you might or might not like their
    packages and their prices, but you can be sure their technical folks
    know gcc better than almost anyone else around, and at least part of
    your money goes right back into gcc development.
     
    David Brown, May 15, 2014
    #16
  17. I've been using GCC for embedded ARM stuff for 15 years now. Never
    regretted it for a second.
    Building it yourself from sources isn't really that hard either.
    I'm an emacs guy, but you can use whatever you like -- that's the nice
    thing about avoiding lock-in by a vendor.
    Yep. There are a variety of frontends for gdb: Eclipse, DDD, emacs,
    KDbg, and a handful of others whose names escape me. [Is the Tcl/Tk
    based one that used to be "included" with gdb sources still around?].

    A few years ago I remember hearing a lot of good things about Rowly
    CrossWorks (gcc/binutils ARM toolchain with proprietary debugger and
    libraries).
     
    Grant Edwards, May 16, 2014
    #17
  18. MK

    David Brown Guest

    You mean "Insight"? I believe it is no longer included in modern gdb,
    and the last version of gdb with Insight does not work with the latest
    version of OpenOCD as it supports newer methods of talking to gdb.
    That's the disadvantage of having the gui tied into gdb itself.

    There are a number of other IDEs that support debugging via gdb, such as
    jedit and Code Blocks, as well as gvd (I used to like that one) which is
    part of GPS, the GNAT Programming System for those that like Ada on
    their ARMs.
     
    David Brown, May 16, 2014
    #18
  19. MK

    MK Guest

    The driver file in question says:

    * Copyright (C) 2013 ARM Limited. All rights reserved.
    *
    * $Date: 12. September 2013
    * $Revision: V1.01
    *
    * Driver: Driver_UART1, Driver_UART2, Driver_UART3,
    * Driver_UART4, Driver_UART5, Driver_UART6
    * Configured: via RTE_Device.h configuration file
    * Project: Middleware UART Driver for ST STM32F4xx


    at the top of the file so it can't be blamed on ST !

    I was kind of hoping that some Keil/ARM bods might hang out here and
    raise their heads above the parapet.

    Thanks all for suggestions, but so far none that are free, open source
    and support the Cortex ETM.

    Rowley has got pricey ($1500 per seat, $300 for a Ulink like debug
    interface that you can get for $25 from Amazon) and CodeSourcery seems
    to be $1000 - $3000+ depending on edition.

    So if anyone has some ideas about the tracing I'd be really interested.



    Michael Kellett
     
    MK, May 16, 2014
    #19

  20. There is also the ARM gcc distribution from ARM themselves:

    <https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded>
    <https://launchpadlibrarian.net/170926122/readme.txt>

    I have been using this successfully for a year or so (unsupported, only
    support is by forum AFAICT). Last time I looked it came with more
    libraries than the free versions of codesourcery, e.g. hard floating
    point for CM4.

    It is regularly updated, it seems to stay one version behind mainline
    gcc with a few bugfixes from themselves and backported from mainline.

    It comes with "newlib nano", an attempt to reduce the footprint of
    newlib with e.g. option for no-floating point printf. There are also
    some simple c++ and semihosting examples, which work out of the box. Two
    things I never got around to with my own builds of gcc, so interesting
    just for that.
     
    John Devereux, May 16, 2014
    #20
    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.