Chris Recoskie,
We use a fair number of processors annually, most of which go into
smart alternator regulators. Back in the days of Motorola shortages we
were a preferred customer and didn't have to suffer through allocation
woes. Our latest regulator uses the MSP430F1232. Another product in
development is using a larger MSP430.
We don't really care if development tools are free or not, but obviously
free is good. What is most important is a consistent method of software
development without the need to learn the quirks of new/changing/buggy
tools. No IDE is wanted, make and native gdb work fine, thanks.
The only environment that meets our requirements is the GNU tool
chain. However, there is one other ABSOLUTE requirement - use of
Windows is not allowed.
We're using some AVRs, not because we like the processor, but for the
simple reason it does what it needs to do and we can use the GNU tool
chain on Linux.
If TI has a compiler that runs on Linux, and its free or better yet, TI
will pay us to learn its quirks, then we might consider that as an
option.
Until that time we're going to select processors that meets the first
and most important criteria - uses the GNU tool chain running on Linux.
You may be a lowly tool engineer, but you have a boss. Please foward
this to him/her.
BTW, I'm just a lowly company stockholder that has the final say on
technical issues. The MSP430X as a processor would meet some of our
future requirements, but it won't be used here until -- TI understands
the need to support the mspgcc project and Linux.
Sincerely,
David Smead
www.amplepower.com
www.amplepower.net
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Recoskie, Chris wrote:
Actually we have compilers for other platforms (Solaris and Linux),
they're just not as well advertised.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
Texas Instruments, Toronto
http://eclipse.org/cdt
-----Original Message-----
From: mspgcc-users-ad...@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:mspgcc-users-
ad...@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Grant Edwards
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:40 AM
To: mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Mspgcc-users] Re: MSP430FG461X
On 2006-03-24, Recoskie, Chris <crecos...@ti.com> wrote:
We already had compiler technology for other instruction set
architectures that we reused. I don't think this is really
the appropriate place to get into a pitch about why we think
our compiler is better than someone else's but I'll just say
that we have a lot of features that we feel are compelling.
Features like "forces you to use MS Windows". ;)
I can't really comment as to that as that's all handled by the
MSP430 team and I really don't have anything to do with the
support of the MSPGCC project. I'm just a lowly tools
engineer :-P
And we're just lowly customers. :(
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My mind is a
potato
at field...
visi.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting
language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live
webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding
territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
