> Let me understand this better, the C54x has a
pipeline stall analyzer
> because it is a protected pipeline and c6x doesnt have one because the
> pipeline is unproctected...Can you explain why an unprotected pipeline
like
> c6x does not need a pipeline stall analyzer?
There are not much things to analyze during stall cycles. None of the stalled
EP instructions are doing anything while the packet is stalled; moreover, all
the 16 pipeline stages (worst case of a 67xx, 6 hidden stages plus E1 to E10)
are frozen during a stall. The CPU just waits till the memory subsystem
submits
its result.
It affects performance, but from the pipeline point of view, it makes no
difference whether it was or wasn't stalled.
> And Visual DSP++, can you tell me a couple of
things what it can do that CCS
> cannot? (am just a curious learner here who doesnt have Visual DSP++
looking
> to understand issues better and not just swallow the marketing stuff that
TI
> peddles! )
Actually I didn't mean that exactly. First of all, VDSP's targets are
not
C6x-es, therefore is wouldn't be fair to say that VDSP can do something
that
CCS doesn't or cannot. It just does the same in a little different
manner.
However, I like its user interface more than that of CCS, because I was able
to find out my way through its menus more quickly than in the Studio.
What's
the right marketing term for this, more intuitive? :)
Rgds,
Andrew
Reply by Tarang Dadia●December 8, 20042004-12-08
<snip>
> The nearest competeting product, I think, is
ADI's VisualDSP++. It seems
> to look better and easier to work with. At least for me :)
I support you on that ..it looks better and is well integrated. But I
miss the CCS environment, with better window into the processor like
better watch window and profiler support. :-)
Tarang
>
> Rgds,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _____________________________________
> Note: If you do a simple "reply" with your email client, only the
author of this message will receive your answer. You need to do a "reply
all" if you want
your answer to be distributed to the entire group. >
> _____________________________________
> About this discussion group:
>
> To Join: Send an email to
>
> To Post: Send an email to
>
> To Leave: Send an email to
>
> Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/c6x
>
> Other Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Reply by Bhooshan iyer●December 8, 20042004-12-08
Andrew-
Let me understand this better, the C54x has a pipeline stall analyzer
because it is a protected pipeline and c6x doesnt have one because the
pipeline is unproctected...Can you explain why an unprotected pipeline like
c6x does not need a pipeline stall analyzer?
And Visual DSP++, can you tell me a couple of things what it can do that CCS
cannot? (am just a curious learner here who doesnt have Visual DSP++ looking
to understand issues better and not just swallow the marketing stuff that TI
peddles! )
--Bhooshan
> (One very common request was c6000 pipeline
insight. I wonder what your
> thoughts are on that but some experts at TI gave a crisp one line reply that > "c6000 is an unprotected pipeline hence
pipeline analyzer wouldnt be of much > value". Not sure why this would be so?)
Exactly so. Besides, pipeline statistics (as well as the cache one) can be
gathered in the profiler. One just needs to set the clock appropriately.
> Anyways, I tried hard to understand if their wish
lists were derived
> primarily by comparison against some other development environment (like
> realview for ARM, gcc , VC++ , green hills etc...) or if they were plain
> frustrations based purely on things that CCS could do better. Well the
> answers quite well spread to put it one way!
The nearest competeting product, I think, is ADI's VisualDSP++. It seems
to look better and easier to work with. At least for me :)
Rgds,
Andrew
_____________________________________
Note: If you do a simple "reply" with your email client, only the
author of
this message will receive your answer. You need to do a "reply all" if
you
want your answer to be distributed to the entire group.
_____________________________________
About this discussion group:
Reply by Andrew Nesterov●December 7, 20042004-12-07
> (One very common request was c6000 pipeline
insight. I wonder what your
> thoughts are on that but some experts at TI gave a crisp one line reply
that
> "c6000 is an unprotected pipeline hence pipeline analyzer wouldnt be
of much
> value". Not sure why this would be so?)
Exactly so. Besides, pipeline statistics (as well as the cache one) can be
gathered in the profiler. One just needs to set the clock appropriately.
> Anyways, I tried hard to understand if their wish
lists were derived
> primarily by comparison against some other development environment (like
> realview for ARM, gcc , VC++ , green hills etc...) or if they were plain
> frustrations based purely on things that CCS could do better. Well the
> answers quite well spread to put it one way!
The nearest competeting product, I think, is ADI's VisualDSP++. It seems
to look better and easier to work with. At least for me :)
Rgds,
Andrew
Reply by Jeff Brower●December 7, 20042004-12-07
Mike-
> Although the following "Code Composer
Essentials" announcement
> from TI is technically 'off topic' [it refers to the TI MSP430
> microcontroller], I think that it may be relevant to this thread.
> I found it very interesting.
It's a great experiment. I wish they would experiment with Linux on
C67xx.
-Jeff
Reply by Mike Dunn●December 7, 20042004-12-07
Everyone,
Although the following "Code Composer Essentials" announcement from
TI is technically 'off topic' [it refers to the TI MSP430
microcontroller], I think that it may be relevant to this thread. I found
it very interesting.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041206/dam006_1.html
mikedunn
Bhooshan iyer <b...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hi All-
After few interactions with some
experienced developers during the developers conference, one overwhelming
discussion/opinion that surfaced was that CCS could do with a lot of
improvements.
(One very common request was c6000 pipeline insight. I
wonder what your thoughts are on that but some experts at TI gave a crisp
one line reply that "c6000 is an unprotected pipeline hence pipeline
analyzer wouldnt be of much value". Not sure why this would be so?)
(And the other common issue raised was when there is a data transfer
problem between CCS and the target(dsk specifically), the CCS hangs badly
and killing CCS and power cycling the DSP would be the only way out. TI
claims that this has been *fixed* in CCS V3.0)
Anyways, I tried
hard to understand if their wish lists were derived primarily by
comparison
against some other development environment (like realview for ARM, gcc ,
VC++ , green hills etc...) or if they were plain frustrations based purely
on things that CCS could do better. Well the answers quite well spread to
put it one way!
I was wondering what are some of the opinions on this
topic here in our user group and what are some of the features/plugins
that you would wish for in CCS specifically c6000?
--Bhooshan
_________________________________________________________________ Are you
right for each other? Find out with our Love Calculator: http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl?page1191text _____________________________________ Note: If you do a simple "reply"
with your email client, only the author of this message will receive your
answer. You need to do a "reply all" if you want your answer to be distributed
to the entire
group.
_____________________________________ About this
discussion group:
<*> To
visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/c6x/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: c...@yahoogroups.com
<*
Reply by Bhooshan iyer●December 6, 20042004-12-06
Hi All-
After few interactions with some experienced developers during the
developers conference, one overwhelming discussion/opinion that surfaced was
that CCS could do with a lot of improvements.
(One very common request was c6000 pipeline insight. I wonder what your
thoughts are on that but some experts at TI gave a crisp one line reply that
"c6000 is an unprotected pipeline hence pipeline analyzer wouldnt be of
much
value". Not sure why this would be so?)
(And the other common issue raised was when there is a data transfer problem
between CCS and the target(dsk specifically), the CCS hangs badly and
killing CCS and power cycling the DSP would be the only way out. TI claims
that this has been *fixed* in CCS V3.0)
Anyways, I tried hard to understand if their wish lists were derived
primarily by comparison against some other development environment (like
realview for ARM, gcc , VC++ , green hills etc...) or if they were plain
frustrations based purely on things that CCS could do better. Well the
answers quite well spread to put it one way!
I was wondering what are some of the opinions on this topic here in our user
group and what are some of the features/plugins that you would wish for in
CCS specifically c6000?