CCS 3.1 vs 3.0.1

Hi,
  I am looking for some information on whats new In TI Code composer
studio 3.1 expect to me they have merged it for all processors.
  Any comment will be helpful.
Regards,
Soumit

What's New in Code Composer Studio Development Tools v3.1 (Rev. A) :
http://www-s.ti.com/sc/psheets/spraa07a/spraa07a.pdf



<soumit.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1121282139.177500.78040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>  I am looking for some information on whats new In TI Code composer
> studio 3.1 expect to me they have merged it for all processors.
>  Any comment will be helpful.
> Regards,
> Soumit
> 

>Hi,
>  I am looking for some information on whats new In TI Code composer
>studio 3.1 expect to me they have merged it for all processors.
>  Any comment will be helpful.
>Regards,
>Soumit

Connect/Disconnect, Rewind and revamped tuning dashboard.
Did CCS3.0 have Code Wright?

--Bhooshan


		
This message was sent using the Comp.DSP web interface on
www.DSPRelated.com

bhooshaniyer wrote:
> >Hi,
> >  I am looking for some information on whats new In TI Code composer
> >studio 3.1 expect to me they have merged it for all processors.
> >  Any comment will be helpful.
> >Regards,
> >Soumit
>
> Connect/Disconnect, Rewind and revamped tuning dashboard.
> Did CCS3.0 have Code Wright?
>
> --Bhooshan
>
>
>

While I like the compiler, I must say that when it comes to target
communicatios (using Spec Dig JTAG emulator) is the most crash-prone
piece of software that I have ever run on a Windows platform, hands
down. I have to kill it with Task Manager and clean up remnant
processes many times per day. I expect much higher reliability for
software that costs thousands of dollars!

John

john wrote:
> 
> While I like the compiler, I must say that when it comes to target
> communicatios (using Spec Dig JTAG emulator) is the most crash-prone
> piece of software that I have ever run on a Windows platform

I found that CCS 3.0 was completely stable and rock steady as long
as the program running on the target behaved itself. As soon as the
target program started doing erratic things (corrupting a function
pointer and trying to execute hyperspace in my case), CCS 3.0 would
lock up and crash constantly. Of course, when your code is
misbehaving is exactly when you need a solid, stable debugger...

Luckily, I've not committed any more schoolboy howlers since I've
been using 3.1, so I can't comment on that.

Cheers

mark-r

-- 
"Let's meet the panel. You couldn't ask for four finer comedians -
so that answers your next question..."
 -- Humphrey Lyttleton

Mark Robinson wrote:
> john wrote:
> >
> > While I like the compiler, I must say that when it comes to target
> > communicatios (using Spec Dig JTAG emulator) is the most crash-prone
> > piece of software that I have ever run on a Windows platform
>
> I found that CCS 3.0 was completely stable and rock steady as long
> as the program running on the target behaved itself. As soon as the
> target program started doing erratic things (corrupting a function
> pointer and trying to execute hyperspace in my case), CCS 3.0 would
> lock up and crash constantly. Of course, when your code is
> misbehaving is exactly when you need a solid, stable debugger...
>
> Luckily, I've not committed any more schoolboy howlers since I've
> been using 3.1, so I can't comment on that.
>
> Cheers
>

I had to laugh when I saw the phrase "rock solid" mentioned in
connection with CCS.

In my case it crashes regularly even when not attached to the target,
with the emulator's USB port disconnected. When CCS boots it gives an
error, with an option to Abort, Retry, or Ignore. I hit Ignore, and CCS
comes up with "Emulator Disconnected" in the bottom tray. Projects load
and compile, as expected. Then at random times CCS freezes up and has
to be killed with Task Manager. Argh!

John

john wrote:
> 
> In my case it crashes regularly even when not attached to the target,
> with the emulator's USB port disconnected.

You have my sympathy, but I have to say I've never had a moments
trouble with it, except when my target code was broken. I have a
Spec. Dig. DM642 EVM (600MHz version) and an XDS560. I've installed
it on a few different machines with various hardware, etc (the
XDS560 doesn't work with a Coreco PC-DIG framegrabber, but otherwise
no problems). Maybe I've just been lucky :-)

Cheers

mark-r

-- 
"Let's meet the panel. You couldn't ask for four finer comedians -
so that answers your next question..."
 -- Humphrey Lyttleton