C Compiler Status
pjv
Posts: 1,903
Hello Ken;
I know with all the Propeller activity, the SX has taken a bit of a back seat, but with the price differential I still have uses for them. So, I was just wondering if there was a status update on the C compiler, with possibly a new ETA?
Cheers,
Peter (pjv)
I know with all the Propeller activity, the SX has taken a bit of a back seat, but with the price differential I still have uses for them. So, I was just wondering if there was a status update on the C compiler, with possibly a new ETA?
Cheers,
Peter (pjv)
Comments
I got a new version of the compiler last week from CCS, but have not been able to do more than install it. I anticipate testing it this week and getting the results back to CCS. ETA? Not sure yet, as it depends on what I find (or don't find) in the new version.
Thanks, PeterM
Thanks for the info. I hope it all works out. I'm eager to start learning C for the SX, and using it if practical.
Cheers,
Peter (pjv)
Ryan
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ryan Clarke
Parallax Tech Support
RClarke@Parallax.com
Ray
The competition wants 'four figures' and I just cannot justify that much for a study project.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much.' - Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)
······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan
CCS already had a compliler for the SX, but it was both more costly and not really well adapted for the SX.
Parallax and CCS got together and this has been evolving.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much.' - Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)
······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan
Thanks, PeterM
Thanks,
Kevin
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Thanks, PeterM
Actually Scenix commissioned the development of CCS SX C. But during the development cycle Scenix went through some changes and by the time the C compiler was finished Scenix was focused on other business issues. So the compiler was never really tested by anyone other than CCS customers. It had the same issues that would be expected from any product left in that state, it needed to be tested and debugged. CCS had a compiler that had been pretty much orphaned and Parallax had an SX that needed a C compiler. So I introduced them. I also introduced Parallax and Netburner which resulted in the PINK.
As for C#. While the C# and .NET initiative were by Microsoft, they have been adopted to open standards in Europe. I believe the right character order is ECMU standards. Also, there is an open source version of .NET that works on Linux and FreeBSD, supported by Novell. It's called MONO and includes a free C# compiler. C# is unique to .NET and MONO and produces tokenized code that is converted to machine language at the time of execution. The goal is to make source code totally platform independent. For example, a Winform program developed in Microsoft C# can be executed on MONO for Windows or MONO for Linux without eing recompiled. There are two tradeoffs to this approach. First, the tokenized files can be fully reverse engineered into source unless encrypted. Second, .NET is still another layer on top of the many that laready exist in Windows, so it consumes processor time and memory. I hope that clears up the confusion. C# will not be coming to Embedded devices any time soon.
Oliver
I am working on a C# compiler right now - first for the SX, and then more generally for microcontrollers. Longer term I'd like to make a C# variant specially for microcontrollers (Cµ or "CMicro"). I've previously worked on a C# and IL compiler that targeted the Flash player, which in some ways is similar to targeting a microcontroller (in the sense of there being a lot of memory, speed, and environment limitations). Like Java, C# gives very rich and knowable information to gen from, but it also has a few things that make it friendlier to lower level generation (like structs and enums for example).
Anyway, I wouldn't say this will happen 'soon' (still only about half way through the parser), but it will probably happen eventually. And yeah, C# and IL (the bytecode for C#) are both open ECMA standards and have been for some time. They are definitely Microsoft centric, but there is nothing preventing them from being used elsewhere.
It has evolved quite a bit since 1978, but the ANSI standard is very stable. C++ is built 'on-top-of' C, and adds 'objects' -- classes, "types-with-methods" -- to the base language.
C# is a creation of Microsoft. I don't know much about it, except that it is also object-oriented, like C++ and Java.
I think the drive for 'C' on the SX is mostly to have a higher-level language than assembly to program the thing in. Maybe using 'objects' would be helpful -- but certainly having a robust, ANSI-C for it would speed development a lot.
C# is pretty much a "C like syntax" wrapper over the "guts" of Visual Basic. There is very close to a 1 to 1 match for keywords and functionality between VB and C#. C# makes it a tad easier to move between C/C++ and C#. You can't really transfer code between the two, but it's supposed to be less stress on your mind to keep the same syntax between the full blown C/C++ and the "Rapid Application Development" environment of VB/C#. My personal opinion is mixed.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
John R.
8 + 8 = 10
Kevin
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Education And Experience Teaches Knowledge Not Arrogance ! (Unknown)
The Only Stupid Question Is The One Not Asked ! (Unknown, of coarse this is something that i would say)
Do Not Burn The Bridge That Has Brought You Forth You May·Need To Journey Back ! (Chinese)
Post Edited (DigitalDj) : 5/3/2006 11:44:03 PM GMT
For those of you who may be familar with Delphi, Microsoft hired the original author of that langauge to write C#. C# is very much like Delphi with a couple of exceptions. When I say like Delphi, I don't mean Pascal but rather of a similar structure. One if the issues when developing object oriented langauges for micros, is available memory. Those jump tables can get HUGE. That's one reason why C++ has not been a big hit with embedded developers. I love object oriented langauges for one reason, they allow me to pass a coding path once! I never need to code those routines again once their in final form because I can inherit them and use that as a starting point. But I still prefer good old C or assembler when it comes to Microcontrollers or OS internals (Device Drivers) because of speed and space.
Oliver
Is there any update information available about time schedule for delivery·SX-C compiler ?
Regards Rob.
We're resolving a final integration issue with CCS right now, and the ball is in our court. Peter and I have exchanged a few messages and he's at work on the project right now. I think we're getting pretty close, finally. But software is another story - we've been "about to release" a new software tool for the USB Oscilloscope for almost a year now. Firmware we seem to be able to finish much faster at Parallax!
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Thanks, your answer is very careful, we must wait still a couple of months i suppose, this year ?·
What do you mean by firmware in·this relation?.
regards Rob.
I suspect Ken means the firmware being the software that is in the products. Software being PC software.
I think he is saying that firmware goes much faster than PC software. That is normally the case with any product. Since the PC software needs manuals and other documentation.
Bean.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheap 4-digit LED display with driver IC·www.hc4led.com
COMING SOON "SD DATA LOGGER" www.sddatalogger.com
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Mythbusters
·
Thanks, its clear, we do have something to wait for.
regards,
Rob.