Is Code Sourcery worth the effort ?

[jlchoobs]

Posted on May 28, 2012 at 18:28

I have been using the Atollic (Lite) for my development.

My Atollic Projects work great (doing USB & MMC work).

But I have run out of space with the 32K limit.

So I moved over recently to the Code Sourcery - or tried.

I can compile a simple: main(){while(1){}} program , etc.

But when I try to move and compile my Atollic Projects,

they do not compile.

Simply:

  make -k all

 - with no file outputs, warnings, errors, etc.

I have been using Eclipse WinArm for Atmel for years.

I followed most specs that I could find - on installing Code Sourcery on Eclipse,

 - but with no result.

Is Code Sourcery supposed to work like a Black Box ?

Is there some Verbose parameter needed or something ?

- Any Advice ?

- Does anybody actually promote Code Sourcery ?

[Tesla DeLorean]

Posted on May 29, 2012 at 00:14

I've been using WinARM/Yargarto for years too, it's my preferred command line gcc / gnu make environment.

For a commercial GNU/GCC based platform, I personally prefer Rowley. They were always quite responsive to queries and problem reports.

I'm sure Mentor promotes Code Sourcery, though I suspect they focus more on their higher value software.

 

[jlchoobs]

Posted on May 30, 2012 at 06:11

Clive - hello again !

So thats a YES ?

Do you have a successful running USB Project for the STM32F4 ?

 - A proven base that I can drop my project into.

I am tired of debugging my conversion of Atollic to CodeSourcery Project.

I have it compiling sort of successfully.

But it does nothing at running - just dead in the water - not a twitch.

I am thinking about compiling as modules on Atollic - then connecting them together manully in ASM after compiling - to work around the 32K limit issue.  32K+32K+32K+=>128k/512k/etc..  But it would be annoying though - rewriting it in ASM.

Have you compiled the stm8240g code in WinArm ?

Where can I find a copy that compiles on WinArm ?

[jlchoobs]

Posted on May 31, 2012 at 20:12

Well,

I successfully compiled the stm3240g Project using Code Sourcery.

Buy it still does nothing on the Discovery Board.

This is code directly converted as working Code on the Discovery Board

- when compiled with Atollic Compiler.

-> Why should the Code not run successfully if it compiles by the Code Sourcery too ??

[Tesla DeLorean]

Posted on June 02, 2012 at 02:00

Don't know why CS wouldn't work, I got sick of it wanting to be registered. I just configured Eclipse to use the current Yagarto tools/chain.

No, not using the USB stuff myself, and primarily F2 parts right now. I have an F4 Discovery board, will be picking up a F0 Discovery on Tuesday, I don't have a STM3240G so if I built code I have no means to test it. I'm not sure I have the patience to port it.

I've built the F2 and F4 firmware libraries using an older WinARM that supported the F1. I haven't tried to build any of the F4 USB libraries but might give it a whirl as time permits.

[jlchoobs]

Posted on June 02, 2012 at 18:58

Clive,

This is my point - I have ported the Stm3240g code over for stm32f4discovery successfully !

All you need is to wire up a SdCard to the stm32f4disc Board.

- It successfully runs as an USB MassStorage Device on Windows.

I also added a Color Lcd - and wrote Fonts and my own version of Space Invaders,  also successful - pretty nifty for only 2 months Stm experience - yes ?

* I have this Ported stm3240g Code successfully compiled and running with Atollic (for the stm32f4Disc brd).

+ I am NOW trying to configure this Ported stm3240g Code to work on Code Sourcery also.

If you are interested in trying - I can send you the working Code for Atollic and CodeSourcery as zip.

- You can run on Atollic - or attempt on Yagarto, etc.

[Andrew Neil]

Posted on June 05, 2012 at 01:10

Last time I looked, CodeSourcery was available in a number of editions - from ''free'' (sic) up to a price comparable to a Keil licence.

The more you pay, the greater your entitlement to support.

Which edition did you choose?

[jlchoobs]

Posted on June 07, 2012 at 10:27

N,

>> ''The more you pay, the greater your entitlement to support.''

This is a Public Forum - if you can't provide Free Advice - then Go Away !

If NOBODY in the STM Forums can offer ANY Assistance, Suggestions, or Useful Advice ,

 then I MUST give a Product Review of :

- that Code Sourcery - is USELESS and WASTE OF TIME

- because Nobody uses it sucessfully enough

-- so they can Not provide advice from WORKING EXPERIENCE.

[frankmeyer9]

Posted on June 07, 2012 at 12:49

This is a Public Forum - if you can't provide Free Advice - then Go Away !

 

This is NOT a public CodeSourcery forum, so stop complaining.

When you downloaded the Lite version, you have read the licence conditions and agreed, did you ?

They make it clear - no support for this version.

- that Code Sourcery - is USELESS and WASTE OF TIME

 

- because Nobody uses it sucessfully enough

This might apply to your case, others might think diferently.

- because Nobody uses it sucessfully enough

This is a wild guess.

-- so they can Not provide advice from WORKING EXPERIENCE.

 

How about looking for a CodeSourcery user forum ?

This forum is dedicated to STM32, which is just one target that this toolsuite supports. Why do you expect detailed expertise about that tool here ?

[jlchoobs]

Posted on June 07, 2012 at 13:10

This seems to be a CRITICS Forum if All that I get is Sarcasm instead of Advice.

It States on THIS Site in the above Right Caption on the Page that 'This IS a PUBLIC Forum'.

Is Anybody here Paying for this Forum ??

- Sad to see Cheap Excuses for throwing Sarcasm at Somebody Asking for advice and making a Direct Observation on the lack of Assistance in the Active Members of this Forum - Who instead of Constructive Advice, would rather throw Negative Sarcasm at Somebody asking for Assistance.

I REPEAT : If Nobody here has CONSTRUCTIVE Advice including Expertise of WORKING Code Sourcery :: Then My Educated Observation is that Code Sourcery is Useless and Not Used by the Stm32 Community - from lack of WORKING CODE and/or EXPERIENCE with it.

QED.

:)

>> ''- This is NOT a public CodeSourcery forum, so stop complaining.''

>> ''- When you downloaded the Lite version, you have read the licence conditions and agreed, did you ?  They make it clear - no support for this version.''

- ARE YOU A SALESMAN for Code Sourcery ? - OR just ENJOY INSULTING People ?

I REPEAT - If You do Not have Experience/Code/Advice - then YOU PROVE my POINT - so Go Away :: I asked for ADVICE not INSULTS.

>> ''-This might apply to your case, others might think diferently.''

:: And Who is PROVING me FALSE - by giving ADVICE from Experience ? - NOBODY - so my only Observation MUST be that I am Correct.

Your Sarcasm and Insults just Prove me Correct..

- Thanks Again fm !

:)

>> ''- because Nobody uses it sucessfully enough - This is a wild guess.''

PROVE me Wrong then !

This forum is dedicated to STM32,

>> ''- which is just one target that this toolsuite supports. Why do you expect detailed expertise about that tool here ?''

== Because Code Sourcery was SUGGESTED  Here as one of the few Resources to use for STM32 !

I am Offering REASONABLE ADVICE for Anybody thinking of using the Code Sourcery.

 

DON'T USE IT - Nobody seems to Want or Can Give any Useful HELP for it for STM32 !

-- Just read this Posting here - and See the ONLY Response that You get when You Ask for Help .. for a SIMPLE Question : ''What could cause this Compiler issue .. ?''

fm, What are YOU here for - besides throwing Insults - not just here either I noticed.

I see Your Insults across this Forum - Without any assistance.

fm - I asked You this on other pages already - are You somebody Educated OR just somebody who Wants to Critique and Insult ?

NO PITCHES HERE PLEASE - GO AWAY fm !

- Are You a salesman here for cs ?

>> ''- When you downloaded the Lite version, you have read the licence conditions and agreed, did you ?  They make it clear - no support for this version.''

NO PITCHES HERE PLEASE - GO AWAY fm !

:|=

[frankmeyer9]

Posted on June 07, 2012 at 14:10

As a matter of fact, even advanced technological capabilities are not necessarily accompanied by corresponding interhuman communication skills.

I see this discussion steering more into the irrational direction.

So I remember that golden forum rule and not going to feed you anymore...