RE: Re: Development tools for MCF5307

Started by Johnson, Jerry December 5, 2002
RE: [motoroladsp] Re: Development tools for MCF5307

First: I need to apologize for sending my other response several times.  For some reason I was getting a formatting problem from the automated coldfire discussion group, so I changed it from RTF(HTML) to text and tried to resend it.  Apparently I did not get it all changed a few times so you all got the result of my errors.

Second: I was in error on the optimization issue!  When we converted over to CW 5.0.2 from 4.x apparently the optimization settings in the projects did not carry through.  That was some time ago, and at the time we noted that our loader would not fit when compiled with the new version.  I finally got around to it again last night, so that was the genesis of my frustration with the optimizer.  I don't know what was going on last night, but for some reason changing global optimizations from faster to larger (I think I was using the radio buttons) had no effect.  I remember trying both full left and full right on the slider, and somewhere in between.  I threw up my hands in disgust, and started looking at the task of optimizing the "C" expressions.  Then, this morning, I got hit with Art's and Ron's messages, and I may have lost a bit of sanity.

In summary, using the first level does make a significant difference in code space, the loader now fits into memory.  However, when I use that setting on our downloaded application, the compiler generates warnings on one developer's machine but not 2 others.  Also, I have noticed that some files are forced to recompile after changing the settings and not others.  Perhaps this is a symptom of the toolset that leads to the label of "Buggy."  I have worked with the Microsoft tools, the LLC compiler, the Tornado version and other versions of the GNU compiler.  While they all have "Quirks", and I have only been using "C" on and off for about 15 years, this toolset does seem to generate more unexpected behaviour.  When I move the slider to ask for smaller code, or click the Radio button for smaller code, I have seen it increase the code size!

Again, I regret having trashed the good programmers who must know something about optimizations after all!!!


-----Original Message-----
From: MW Ron []
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:06 AM
To: Art Johnson; Tom Burrell; Coldfire CPU Discussion List
Cc: Corey, Rick;; Kevin Ackerley (E-mail); Ed Baillie (E-mail); Ken Andreasen; JB Bjorknas; Greg Clark; Greg Coonley (E-mail); Dick Fons (E-mail)

Subject: [motoroladsp] Re: Development tools for MCF5307

I am sorry that Art Johnson has chosen to use a public forum to defame
Metrowerks.  In the same thread he quoted from there are other letters that
dispel these questions about our product. I want to assure everyone that
Metrowerks is totally committed to providing the finest quality development
tools available.

Art has consistently insisted that not putting C constants in P FLASH  is a
fatal bug.  We disagree with this and feel we have a sound reason for not
putting constants in P Memory and suggested a way to do this in assembler.
Having a dispute over this does not constitute making the worst compiler in

I publicly posted a message in October to the MotorolaDSP list and on the
internet requesting any critical compiler bugs regarding the CodeWarrior for
DSP56800 v5.x be reported so we could be sure they were fixed.  Only one
person replied with any reports.   We personally contacted Art Johnson and
got all that he considered critical, so we could fix these as soon as

Now maybe there are more bugs and there always are improvements that can be
made.   But judging by the lack of critical problems reported with the
current version of CodeWarrior it would seem the majority of people are
satisfactorily and productively using CodeWarrior for DSP.  We are not
claiming to be perfect but it is Metrowerks firm commitment to quality and
to strive for excellence. Towards this end Metrowerks will have an update
for CodeWarrior for DSP56800 later this month.

In September there was another flame war based on our previous version of
CodeWarrior.   For that I asked that everyone that felt they hadn't been
treated fairly contact me.  I believe that everyone ended up satisfied with
this process, and I offer this as proof that Metrowerks cares about our

Based on this real evidence and facts of the quality of our product the
number of satisfied customers and the support we provide.  I feel quite
confident of Metrowerks commitment to CodeWarrior for quality tools.

So if you have a legitimate grievance please let us know, Please feel free
to contact me personally.  I will make sure that the president of Metrowerks
is made aware of the problems.  But please keep it civil and please be

Thank you for listening.



Ron Liechty,
Ombudsman for Metrowerks Corporation

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:


More Groups: