see below, please.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: "Dave McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
> On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>> Nope ...
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Nope ... no Hollerith cards ... I couldn't lift the keypunch ...
> I'm getting
> old, doncha know! In fact, I just click over another year as of 9/5.
Happy birthday!
> I haven't found any doc's on the assembler syntax ... is that out
see below, please.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
>
>> >> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the
>>
> >> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the
> >> documentation actually prevents me from using it.
> >
> > Have you even installed it yet?
>
> Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the resulting
> conditions are not well defined.
OK.
Have yo
Dave -
It's done everything I expected, based on M$-published documentation from
previous generations, though it came pre-installed, so I simply put up with
what it did/didn't do. I did buy a sealed copy of XP-Home-Edition ... for
$2, ... about what it's worth ... which initially came from the
Richard,
You asked for it - you got it (poor memory and all - I have no
references to hand just now). If anyone else wants to correct me as we
go - please feel free.
As I recall the MMU is configured such that the physical memory space is
viewed as 4k pages - the power on default is to address t
Hi Vaclav,
The above measures will allow you to build the project, but manual
inspection of the code generated for usb.c, l.309 revealed that
there is severe bug in the code generator: instead of just reading
SetupPacket.wValue1 (offset 3), the generated code overwrites
SetupPacket.bmRequestTy
Well, I created a nice heap of EPROMS for the eraser in the attempt!
I've ended-up with a reasonably satisfactory result - the analyser tells me my
stack is at the top of memory (17FFF), which is what I wanted. This means
I've got 64K of stack, which seems a bit excessive; but what the hell. My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> along those lines, has anyone been successful at running the Keil
> compiler .exe pieces under Wine? i did the experiment at one point,
> and got the compiler to run, but since i hadn't configured a license
> key (i didn't want to disturb my existing license, and i onl
And you run Windows??
-Dave
On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the
> resulting
> conditions are not well defined.
>
> regards,
>
> Richard Erlacher
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECT
Yes, reluctantly, since I don't like to install things when the resulting
conditions are not well defined.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source gener
Richard,
Glad to hear that you solved your problem.
I was literally composing a response for you when your message arrived a
few minutes ago - good timing. (I'm no expert but no one else seemed to
be jumping in so I was going to have a go based on faded memories of a
much earlier project :->)
C
I think Dave makes a good point here - I've had to do some hacking to make
anything useful happen, and that has entailed writing several noddy programs
to try things out, but on the whole the experience has been [fairly]
painless.
I suspect that programming OTP chips isn't the place to begin th
> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the
> documentation actually prevents me from using it.
Have you even installed it yet?
Randy
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move De
After a few educated guesses and with the help of my trusty logic analyser, I
have solved this problem.
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 01:44:33 Richard Gray wrote:
> Can anyone set me straight on this, especially bearing in mind that SDCC
> doesn't know anything about the 20-bit address space or
My point is that RTLs are "compiler internals", and some compilers
don't use them at all. High-level language translators (what f2c is)
simply translate one language into another...they are not compilers
per se.
-Dave
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote:
> Dave,
On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> It is true that nobody force me to use SDCC, but the deficiency in the
> documentation actually prevents me from using it.
Good heavens Richard, don't give up so easily. I've looked at the
manual once or twice, and have developed quite a
see below, please.
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: "Andrey Vlassov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally
> Well,
>
> it is very simple -- most Windows users do not know
BTW, as this thread also touched IDE subject...
Mostly for the Microchip PIC enthusiasts, there are HI-TIDE 3 integrated
development environment freely available at
http://www.htsoft.com/products/hitide/hitide3.php from the makers of PICC C
compiler. It is based on Eclipse/CDT, has integrated PI
Dave,
it was a time when p2c/f2c was only an option for gcc
http://directory.fsf.org/project/p2c/
http://www.netlib.org/f2c/f2c.1
Andrey
Dave McGuire wrote:
>On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C"
>>is n
Dave,
thank you for your explanation.
I must repeat that I am not a programmer -- I am Systems Analyst
(Systems Engineer/Systems Administrator). I would consider myself as a
"bad programmer".
I got an interest in SDCC a few years ago but did very little -- just
for experiment. And as immigran
> The above measures will allow you to build the project, but manual
> inspection of the code generated for usb.c, l.309 revealed that there is
> severe bug in the code generator: instead of just reading
> SetupPacket.wValue1 (offset 3), the generated code overwrites
> SetupPacket.bmRequestType (of
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Andrey Vlassov wrote:
> Well, I am not completely sure and it might be that you right that "C"
> is not "RTL" any more as it was years ago.
"C" was never "RTL". C has always been C. Various RTLs have come
and gone as needed, typically as intermediary steps in com
Arkadi,
I am not compiler developper but I learnt it from documentation and books
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigmil/RevEng/ch02.html
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_82.html (please
follow "next >>>" link)
http://codingfreak.blogspot.com/2008/02/compilation-process-in-gcc.html
Bobby Garner wrote:
> In Windows XP the Command Interpreter is cmd.exe. It accepts command
> line input, but that doesn't mean that it has to be typed. It can run
> from an IDE for example. It is a DOS program and regardless of how you
> run it (Window or Full Screen) it still does not accept lo
In Windows XP the Command Interpreter is cmd.exe. It accepts command
line input, but that doesn't mean that it has to be typed. It can run
from an IDE for example. It is a DOS program and regardless of how you
run it (Window or Full Screen) it still does not accept long filenames.
In XP it does
Andrey Vlassov wrote:
> If you ask them what really happens when they click "Compile" or "Run"
> you will get wrong answer.
Half of what you wrote about compilation sequence is obviously wrong. If you
ever going to teach people about the topic, please first make clear how it
really works for yo
Well,
it is very simple -- most Windows users do not know how compiler works
(I mean what stages source come through). I work for university as
Systems Analyst and I must say that very few students learn what really
happens in background.
Novaday every compiler is a command line program. Even
Xiaofan,
I do understand what you mean. Someone else has explained off-list, too,
that LINUX has a WINE that attempts to provide a Windows user interface for
LINUX users, and these add-ons apparently attempt to provide the *NIX
console command interface for the Windows user. Since, ultimately,
I've never worked with an OS that doesn't have a console, and that implies
that it has a console command processor ... the command line input. Windows
tries to get away from that, but, of course, it can't really do that. Now,
I can't comment about Vista, but XP and earlier, including 2K and NT
Windows users. Go to Start> All Programs> Accessories, and right click
on Command Prompt. Click on Properties, then click the Options tab.
Under Display options choose Window or Full Screen. Click the shortcut
tab and notice that the target in each case is one and the same 'cmd.exe'.
Any quest
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm no expert in SDCC, but I use it on my WinXP box without Cygwin.
>
> Aren't most (all?) compilers command line?
I've never seen or heard of one that wasn't, except for some early
Mac-based compilers.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
I'm no expert in SDCC, but I use it on my WinXP box without Cygwin.
Aren't most (all?) compilers command line?
-- Original message --
From: "Richard Erlacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a
> DOS prompt,
Not quite correct. Cygwin is a Linux emulation environment for Windows.
It allows you to port Linux source code (and thereby most UNIX source)
code
to Windows. The included libraries provide routines that emulate
most Linux system calls (fork, exec, signal, pipe, etc, etc, etc).
It does not allow
xiaofan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, I think that most would say that a Windows
> > programme is one that interacts directly with the Windows API/GUI -
> > which would exclude all command-line programmes.
>
> It is correct to
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I think that most would say that a Windows
> programme is one that interacts directly with the Windows API/GUI -
> which would exclude all command-line programmes.
It is correct to say that a Windows program is on
Quoth Richard Erlacher at 2008-09-04 18:51...
> Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a
> DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by
> Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together?
I don't know if this is any help
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Richard Erlacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sadly, though you may know, you haven't shed light on WHY this SDCC stuff
> isn't promoted as a DOS program, rather than a Windows program.
SDCC under Windows is a Win32 console (command line) version. It is
a Windows p
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Richard Erlacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a
> DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by
> Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together?
>
Yo
Yes, but SDCC doesn't actually run under Windows, does it? It runs under a
DOS prompt, which means it uses the DOS command interpreter, as presented by
Windows, rather than Windows. How does that fit together?
regards,
Richard Erlacher
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Gray" <[EMA
40 matches
Mail list logo
