|
I, agree with Sanit. I too got the DSP board with free CW4.0 and have had to deal with many reliability issues with respect to code generation and especially debugging on CW4.0. I think that if there are serious bugs with a particular version of any program, a patch should be created to address those particular issue. Any new version of CW should not only include those bug fixes but any other innovations/enhancements that help make the product better than the previous version. I am not of the opinion that all 4.0 users get a free upgrade to 5.0 but at the very least a free fix to the bugs which plague CW4.0. If not a software patch then file updates to correct the problems or some information on suggested workarounds to fix these issues. After all if we are going to be doing Beta testing for Metrowerks, I think at the very least Metrowerks can provide us with the means resolve these serious problems in a cost effective and equitable manner. It is very unproductive and unrewarding when much of your time is spent fixing the tools you need to do your work. Victor Miramontes Principal Engineer Advanced Mobility Systems, LLC -----Original Message----- From: Santi Corera [mailto:] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:56 AM To: ; MW Ron Subject: Re: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading Of course, you are right, but you forget that, in the evaluation module offer was included Code Warrior 4.0, and it was said to be an environment to develop in assembler and C, so I feel deceived with this product. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MW Ron" <> To: <> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading > Santi Corera wrote: > > > I also have purchased this version of Code Warrior with an evaluation board > > and I have found it is not possible to work in C reliaby. > > I think Metrowerks must provide the patches to solve the bugs in this product. > > The user would be able to choose upgrading to version 5.0. > > Sorry for my bad english. > > Many people that have CodeWarrior for DSP 4 did not pay for the CodeWarrior > tools as they came free as a promotion with an evaluation board. Obviously > there is no free upgrade for those customers. > > We offer a very generous discount for people that had paid for support of > release 4. This is a pretty heavy discount of 70% off. > > In addition to bug fixes there was many new features in 5.0 including: > A new IDE (4.2.6) > Full functioning inline assembler > Faster compiled code > Better EVM examples and stationary > Better allocation of memory > Better startup code > Better GUi for seting hardware Breakpoints > More efficient linker > > Also they new veriosn works with the latest SDK, which has gone on to add > new processor support. > > This is quite a bit of value for the upgrade price, so I don't feel anyone > is buying bug fixes when they upgrade to CW 5. > > While I agree that a customer should not have to pay to get a bug fixed. > This should only be true if the bug is serious and it is reported on the > latest version. > > I believe that we have been very reasonable and fair with our customers > regarding our upgrades. We are continuing to provide patches for the current > tools and for those that had our older tools we have been generous in our > discounts to allow them to upgrade. > > Thanks for reading this far. If you have CW 4 and are unsure if you qualify > for the discount or not write me an e-mail and let me know your location, > and I'll pass it on to the appropriate sales desk. > > Ron > -- > Do what you do best and let Metrowerks do the rest !! > http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Services/SSG/default.htm > > Metrowerks, maker of CodeWarrior - "Software Starts Here" > Ron Liechty - - http://www.metrowerks.com > _____________________________________ > 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: > > To Post: > > To Leave: > > Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp > > More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ _____________________________________ 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: To Post: To Leave: Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 |
|
|
RE: CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading
Started by ●September 30, 2002
Reply by ●September 30, 20022002-09-30
|
> Many people that have CodeWarrior for DSP 4 did not pay for the CodeWarrior > tools as they came free as a promotion with an evaluation board. Obviously > there is no free upgrade for those customers. There seems to be some confusion here. We got the eval package through our distributor, and they told us that this was a good deal because we get (and I quote) "...a years support & free upgrades for a year". Now a Metrowerks representative is contradicting that. Of course, I don't know who is at fault here, but I do not like what I am hearing. It now looks like we are obliged to pay the full price just to be able to create production intent code. Whatever else, this is not a good public relations exercise by Metrowerks/Motorola. Steve. Steve Chaplin Principal Engineer Zero 88 Lighting Ltd. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) |
Reply by ●September 30, 20022002-09-30
|
Santi Corera wrote: > Of course, you are right, but you forget that, in the evaluation module > offer was included Code Warrior 4.0, and it was said to be an environment to > develop in assembler and C, so I feel deceived with this product. I understand your concerns and I thought we had cleared all of this up last February. All I can say is to write to me and give me your details and we will treat these on a case by case basis. Ron >> Many people that have CodeWarrior for DSP 4 did not pay for the >> CodeWarrior >> tools as they came free as a promotion with an evaluation board. >> Obviously >> there is no free upgrade for those customers. >> >> We offer a very generous discount for people that had paid for support of >> release 4. This is a pretty heavy discount of 70% off. -- Do what you do best and let Metrowerks do the rest !! http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Services/SSG/default.htm Metrowerks, maker of CodeWarrior - "Software Starts Here" Ron Liechty - - http://www.metrowerks.com |
Reply by ●September 30, 20022002-09-30
|
Of course, you are right, but you forget that, in the evaluation module offer was included Code Warrior 4.0, and it was said to be an environment to develop in assembler and C, so I feel deceived with this product. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MW Ron" <> To: <> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading > Santi Corera wrote: > > > I also have purchased this version of Code Warrior with an evaluation board > > and I have found it is not possible to work in C reliaby. > > I think Metrowerks must provide the patches to solve the bugs in this product. > > The user would be able to choose upgrading to version 5.0. > > Sorry for my bad english. > > Many people that have CodeWarrior for DSP 4 did not pay for the CodeWarrior > tools as they came free as a promotion with an evaluation board. Obviously > there is no free upgrade for those customers. > > We offer a very generous discount for people that had paid for support of > release 4. This is a pretty heavy discount of 70% off. > > In addition to bug fixes there was many new features in 5.0 including: > A new IDE (4.2.6) > Full functioning inline assembler > Faster compiled code > Better EVM examples and stationary > Better allocation of memory > Better startup code > Better GUi for seting hardware Breakpoints > More efficient linker > > Also they new veriosn works with the latest SDK, which has gone on to add > new processor support. > > This is quite a bit of value for the upgrade price, so I don't feel anyone > is buying bug fixes when they upgrade to CW 5. > > While I agree that a customer should not have to pay to get a bug fixed. > This should only be true if the bug is serious and it is reported on the > latest version. > > I believe that we have been very reasonable and fair with our customers > regarding our upgrades. We are continuing to provide patches for the current > tools and for those that had our older tools we have been generous in our > discounts to allow them to upgrade. > > Thanks for reading this far. If you have CW 4 and are unsure if you qualify > for the discount or not write me an e-mail and let me know your location, > and I'll pass it on to the appropriate sales desk. > > Ron > -- > Do what you do best and let Metrowerks do the rest !! > http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Services/SSG/default.htm > > Metrowerks, maker of CodeWarrior - "Software Starts Here" > Ron Liechty - - http://www.metrowerks.com > _____________________________________ > 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: > > To Post: > > To Leave: > > Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp > > More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > |
|
|
Reply by ●September 30, 20022002-09-30
|
Victor Miramontes wrote: You may have a valid complaint and a legitimate argument. I will be happy to work with you to resolve any issues in a fair and equitable way. > I, agree with Sanit. I too got the DSP board with free CW4.0 and have had > to deal with many reliability issues with respect to code generation and > especially debugging on CW4.0. I think that if there are serious bugs with a > particular version of any program, a patch should be created to address > those particular issue. Any new version of CW should not only include those > bug fixes but any other innovations/enhancements that help make the product > better than the previous version. I am not of the opinion that all 4.0 users > get a free upgrade to 5.0 but at the very least a free fix to the bugs which > plague CW4.0. If not a software patch then file updates to correct the > problems or some information on suggested workarounds to fix these issues. > After all if we are going to be doing Beta testing for Metrowerks, I think > at the very least Metrowerks can provide us with the means resolve these > serious problems in a cost effective and equitable manner. It is very > unproductive and unrewarding when much of your time is spent fixing the > tools you need to do your work. At some point there has to be a statute of limitations. Finding a problem that requires such draconian measures 7 or 8 months after a new version is going to be viewed skeptically. There may be valid reasons, but it is really hard to say that a product is unproductive if you've been using it for a year. That is why we need to judge this on a case by case basis. I'm sure that we will do what is fair for all concerned. Ron |
Reply by ●October 1, 20022002-10-01
|
Hi, Upgrade from Codewarrior 4 to 5? I did it, but I returned to version 4.0.2, due to the following new bug in version 5: *********** C-listing #define GPIOD_BASE 0x13E0 // Table 3-36 for DSP56F807 #define GPIO_D_DR *(WORD *) (0x1+GPIOD_BASE) GPIO_D_DR |= 0x02; // set GPIO-D1 to 1 *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 4.0.2 orc #2,X:13e1 *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 5 movei #5089,R0 nop move X:(R0),X0 orc #2,X0 ; <=== What happens if here an interrupt occurs? move X0,X:(R0) The problem of this bug is not the additional memory nor the additional execution time, but the problem is if during the main program an interrupt function occurs, which sets f.e. GPIO-D7. In this case the main program resets the GPIO-D7 value, just set by the interrupt function. In this way you get software bugs, which are difficult to reproduce and difficult to find! This is only one bug of my Codewarrior bug collection (most of them have not been solved in version 5). I have sent them to Metrowerks, but only very few have been answered (some after half a year). I have 14 years experience in developing embedded software, but I have never used a compiler with so many bugs as Codewarrior. We paid the full price for Codewarrior version 4 and my supplier understood that I was not willing to pay a cent for version 5, so I got the upgrade to version 5 for free. However now I use version 4.0.2 for compilation and version 5 for debugging Kind regards, Wim de Haan Exendis B.V. W.J. de Haan P.O.box 56, 6710 BB Ede Keesomstraat 4, 6716 AB Ede The Netherlands. Tel: +31- 318 - 676305 |
|
|
Reply by ●October 1, 20022002-10-01
|
Victor hits the nail right on the head. What if you purchased a new car
with the break system not quite right. I was lucky to have a friend who went through the learning curve help me. I went through a good month of unhappy customer. fc -----Original Message----- From: Victor Miramontes [mailto:] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:33 AM To: ; Santi Corera; ; MW Ron Subject: RE: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading I, agree with Sanit. I too got the DSP board with free CW4.0 and have had to deal with many reliability issues with respect to code generation and especially debugging on CW4.0. I think that if there are serious bugs with a particular version of any program, a patch should be created to address those particular issue. Any new version of CW should not only include those bug fixes but any other innovations/enhancements that help make the product better than the previous version. I am not of the opinion that all 4.0 users get a free upgrade to 5.0 but at the very least a free fix to the bugs which plague CW4.0. If not a software patch then file updates to correct the problems or some information on suggested workarounds to fix these issues. After all if we are going to be doing Beta testing for Metrowerks, I think at the very least Metrowerks can provide us with the means resolve these serious problems in a cost effective and equitable manner. It is very unproductive and unrewarding when much of your time is spent fixing the tools you need to do your work. Victor Miramontes Principal Engineer Advanced Mobility Systems, LLC -----Original Message----- From: Santi Corera [mailto:] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:56 AM To: ; MW Ron Subject: Re: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading Of course, you are right, but you forget that, in the evaluation module offer was included Code Warrior 4.0, and it was said to be an environment to develop in assembler and C, so I feel deceived with this product. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MW Ron" <> To: <> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: [motoroladsp] CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading > Santi Corera wrote: > > > I also have purchased this version of Code Warrior with an evaluation board > > and I have found it is not possible to work in C reliaby. > > I think Metrowerks must provide the patches to solve the bugs in this product. > > The user would be able to choose upgrading to version 5.0. > > Sorry for my bad english. > > Many people that have CodeWarrior for DSP 4 did not pay for the CodeWarrior > tools as they came free as a promotion with an evaluation board. Obviously > there is no free upgrade for those customers. > > We offer a very generous discount for people that had paid for support of > release 4. This is a pretty heavy discount of 70% off. > > In addition to bug fixes there was many new features in 5.0 including: > A new IDE (4.2.6) > Full functioning inline assembler > Faster compiled code > Better EVM examples and stationary > Better allocation of memory > Better startup code > Better GUi for seting hardware Breakpoints > More efficient linker > > Also they new veriosn works with the latest SDK, which has gone on to add > new processor support. > > This is quite a bit of value for the upgrade price, so I don't feel anyone > is buying bug fixes when they upgrade to CW 5. > > While I agree that a customer should not have to pay to get a bug fixed. > This should only be true if the bug is serious and it is reported on the > latest version. > > I believe that we have been very reasonable and fair with our customers > regarding our upgrades. We are continuing to provide patches for the current > tools and for those that had our older tools we have been generous in our > discounts to allow them to upgrade. > > Thanks for reading this far. If you have CW 4 and are unsure if you qualify > for the discount or not write me an e-mail and let me know your location, > and I'll pass it on to the appropriate sales desk. > > Ron > -- > Do what you do best and let Metrowerks do the rest !! > http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Services/SSG/default.htm > > Metrowerks, maker of CodeWarrior - "Software Starts Here" > Ron Liechty - - http://www.metrowerks.com > _____________________________________ > 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: > > To Post: > > To Leave: > > Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp > > More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ _____________________________________ 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: To Post: To Leave: Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
Reply by ●October 1, 20022002-10-01
|
While I agree that CodeWarrior 5 produces poorer code than 4.0.2 in this example, when changing data in any shared resource (like a GPIO port or globally shared memory), one should never assume that the compiler will generate code that performs the operation atomically (ie as one indivisible operation). This is particularly important when you are using a RealTime Operating System (RTOS) (we use the DSPOS RTOS in all our applications). The generally accepted way of coding to prevent this sort of problem with a shared resource is shown by the following example from one of our programs: #define Sci0_Tx_Connect( ) \ { \ register WORD interrupt; \ interrupt = Disable_Int(); \ g_p_dspregs->pwma.pmout &= ~SCI0_TX_ENABLE_BIT; \ Enable_Int(interrupt); \ } #define Sci0_Tx_Disconnect( ) \ { \ register WORD interrupt; \ interrupt = Disable_Int(); \ g_p_dspregs->pwma.pmout |= SCI0_TX_ENABLE_BIT; \ Enable_Int(interrupt); \ } The functions Disable_Int() and Enable_Int() are provided by the DSPOS library. In this example, we are using one output on PWMA to control the Transmit Enable pin of an RS-485 transceiver for the SCI0 serial port. In any case, as I mentioned before, the very serious bugs that exist in CodeWarrior 4.x and earlier mean that you are taking a big risk of having your program crash in an unpredictable manner. We stumbled upon the "local variable bug inside a function" almost by accident. It was discovered when we were tracking down a completely different CodeWarrior bug. Our software could easily have been sent out with this "time bomb" embedded in it. For the above reasons, anyone with an older version of CodeWarrior should upgrade to version 5.0 with the 5.0.2 patch. I agree with you, that in my 26+ years experience I have never seen a compiler as buggy as CodeWarrior. While no product this complex is ever "perfect", the bugs we keep finding go way beyond what is acceptable. The Metrowerks compiler writers apparently don't even understand basic ANSI C concepts like the meaning of the keywords "volatile" or "const". This is not exotic, high-level stuff, it's basically kindergarten-level C programming. You might expect these sorts of problems in Version 1.0 of some product, but they should not exist in a "mature" product like Version 5.0 (which we recently had to buy to get some other bugs fixed). They even deliberately introduced a bug into Version 5.0 (Compiler/linker puts const data into X RAM) that contravenes the ANSI C standard meaning of "const". They refused to fix this bug (they think it's actually a "new, improved feature"), but gave us a work-around that cost me weeks of work to change every build target of every project we have here. I'm sure we'll never know how much all this extra time and effort has cost our company (both in direct development costs and lost sales due to delayed product launches), but I'm sure it's well over $100,000. Forcing us to pay for an upgrade rather than issuing patches to version 4.x is just adding insult to injury. Maybe that's the price you have to pay to design in leading-edge devices ... Regards, Art Johnson Senior Systems Analyst PMC Prime Mover Controls Inc. 3600 Gilmore Way Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5G 4R8 Phone: 604 433-4644 FAX: 604 433-5570 Email: http://www.pmc-controls.com -----Original Message----- From: wdhaan [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:55 AM To: Subject: [motoroladsp] Re: CodeWarrior 4 Upgrading Hi, Upgrade from Codewarrior 4 to 5? I did it, but I returned to version 4.0.2, due to the following new bug in version 5: *********** C-listing #define GPIOD_BASE 0x13E0 // Table 3-36 for DSP56F807 #define GPIO_D_DR *(WORD *) (0x1+GPIOD_BASE) GPIO_D_DR |= 0x02; // set GPIO-D1 to 1 *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 4.0.2 orc #2,X:13e1 *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 5 movei #5089,R0 nop move X:(R0),X0 orc #2,X0 ; <=== What happens if here an interrupt occurs? move X0,X:(R0) The problem of this bug is not the additional memory nor the additional execution time, but the problem is if during the main program an interrupt function occurs, which sets f.e. GPIO-D7. In this case the main program resets the GPIO-D7 value, just set by the interrupt function. In this way you get software bugs, which are difficult to reproduce and difficult to find! This is only one bug of my Codewarrior bug collection (most of them have not been solved in version 5). I have sent them to Metrowerks, but only very few have been answered (some after half a year). I have 14 years experience in developing embedded software, but I have never used a compiler with so many bugs as Codewarrior. We paid the full price for Codewarrior version 4 and my supplier understood that I was not willing to pay a cent for version 5, so I got the upgrade to version 5 for free. However now I use version 4.0.2 for compilation and version 5 for debugging Kind regards, Wim de Haan Exendis B.V. W.J. de Haan P.O.box 56, 6710 BB Ede Keesomstraat 4, 6716 AB Ede The Netherlands. Tel: +31- 318 - 676305 _____________________________________ 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: To Post: To Leave: Archives: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/motoroladsp More Groups: http://www.dsprelated.com/groups.php3 ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
Reply by ●October 1, 20022002-10-01
|
Hi Wim, Another option is to use a Macro. Creation: #define SET_PORT_LINE(a,b) asm(bfset a, x:b) #define CLEAR_PORT_LINE(a,b) asm(bfclr a, x:b) Usage: SET_PORT_LINE(#2, $13e1) CLEAR_PORT_LINE(#2, $13e1) Regards Greg ---------------- Greg Coonley DSP OS, Inc. 327 Dahlonega Rd Suite 1801-A Cumming, GA 30040 Phone: 678-208-2250 ext 304 Fax: 678-208-2254 e-mail: URL: www.dspos.com ---------------- --- In motoroladsp@y..., "wdhaan" <w.d.haan@e...> wrote: > Hi, > > Upgrade from Codewarrior 4 to 5? > I did it, but I returned to version 4.0.2, due to the following new > bug in version 5: > > *********** C-listing > > #define GPIOD_BASE 0x13E0 // Table 3-36 for DSP56F807 > #define GPIO_D_DR *(WORD *) (0x1+GPIOD_BASE) > GPIO_D_DR |= 0x02; // set GPIO-D1 to 1 > > *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 4.0.2 > > orc #2,X:13e1 > > *********** Assembly listing Codewarrior version 5 > > movei #5089,R0 > nop > move X:(R0),X0 > orc #2,X0 ; <=== What happens > if here an interrupt occurs? > move X0,X:(R0) > > The problem of this bug is not the additional memory nor the > additional execution time, > but the problem is if during the main program an interrupt function > occurs, which sets f.e. GPIO-D7. > In this case the main program resets the GPIO-D7 value, just set by > the interrupt function. > In this way you get software bugs, which are difficult to reproduce > and difficult to find! > > This is only one bug of my Codewarrior bug collection (most of them > have not been solved in version 5). I have sent them to Metrowerks, > but only very few have been answered (some after half a year). I have > 14 years experience in developing embedded software, but I have never > used a compiler with so many bugs as Codewarrior. We paid the full > price for Codewarrior version 4 and my supplier understood that I was > not willing to pay a cent for version 5, so I got the upgrade to > version 5 for free. However now I use version 4.0.2 for compilation > and version 5 for debugging > > Kind regards, > Wim de Haan > Exendis B.V. > W.J. de Haan > P.O.box 56, 6710 BB Ede > Keesomstraat 4, 6716 AB Ede > The Netherlands. > Tel: +31- 318 - 676305 |
