----- Original Message ----- From: "Recoskie, Chris" <crecos...@ti.com> To: <mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:10 PM Subject: RE: [Mspgcc-users] MSP430FG461X
<snip my rant> > > 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. > It is a fine place to say why mspgcc is better than other compilers, though :-) Actually, I do realise that you already had compilers for other targets. I just hope you didn't base too much on the Code Composer Studio for the TMS320F24x chips that I had to use for a project (or that it has improved substantially from when I got it, around five years ago or so). > > > One of the big reasons that I like the msp430 is that it's C-friendly > > architecture has allowed for an excellent gcc port. If TI had > supported > > the > > gcc (and gdb) work from the start, instead of being content ignoring > all > > non-IAR developers, I'd have been using msp430s for much longer and > we'd > > have far fewer AVRs at our company. When the 430X chips are > available, if > > they are not supported by gcc then they will not be an option for me - > IAR > > or CCE do not fullfill my requirements for development tools. When we > > start > > to need a small, cheap micro with more than 64k internal address > space, > > we'll pushed into using ARMs (unless the tiny ColdFires are out by > then). > > > > 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 > Does this imply that there is someone else at TI who is involved in supporting mspgcc, and are they on this list too? Even if you are not directly involved, I always think it is a good thing when manufacturers have a voice and an ear in mailing lists and newsgroups. > IMHO though, the more tools the merrier. I've been evangelizing for a > long time that we should just plain give our tools away, period, and > open source the whole lot, but as you can imagine that idea is hard to > gain traction with. With CCE we've at least open sourced the portions > that we can. > > BTW TI makes plenty of nice arm chips you can use too ;-) > If we ever decide to move to ARM chips, then we would certainly be looking at the TMS470 family. For a number of reasons, I've always like TI as a supplier. And the ARM has a nice gcc port... > > Obviously no one in the TI management is going to cry about losing > sales > > to > > a small company like mine (and we expect to use the ordinary msp430 > for > > many > > years to come). But my point is that you ( TI ) should be supporting > > something like mspgcc (and other tool vendors - I know ImageCraft had > to > > fight tooth and claw for information and support from TI in their > early > > days) in every way you can. The mspgcc developers should have all the > > information available - or you should be writing patches and > contributing > > directly. I'm fully aware that there are complications in this, such > as > > specifications which change - but generally these things can be worked > > out. > > I agree but it's not my call to make I'm afraid. > > ___________________________________________ > > Chris Recoskie > Software Designer > Texas Instruments, Toronto > http://eclipse.org/cdt >
