From: Ken <shiva@compuserve.com>
To: Martin Boyer <gamin@videotron.ca>
Cc: c++-embedded@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: gcc for embedded: Worth it?
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35947335.52D3@compuserve.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x7emwcz757.fsf@carette.Foo.COM>
Martin Boyer wrote:
>
> "Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss@datentechnik.com> writes:
>
> > Who has ever tried to compile a crosscompiler under linux to run
> > under win32 and to target 68k? Experiences with c++ for embedded?
>
> I didn't have time to built the crosscompiler myself, so I had my
> company purchase GNUPro, from Cygnus Solutions. This is for an Intel
> i960 target on a Windows NT 4.0 host.
>
> After a few weeks of early problems, caused mainly by problems with
> segmentation faults from an older version of cygwin32, I can say this
> was a very good decision. The folks at Cygnus are very competent and
> diligent. The tools are good and easy to use (I'm a Unix old-timer).
>
> As for C++ for embedded, we had a protocol library that was using
> templates and the Standard Template Library. That never worked, most
> probably due to problems with constructors or structure
> initialization. I can't blame anyone; the protocol code was developed
> on Visual C++ 5.0 and used extensions that weren't in the C++ draft
> standard. To make a long story short, the parts that used templates
> were re-implemented without templates, and that worked. We have since
> added code which used templates in a limited way, and that worked as
> well. Go figure.
>
> Overall, I'd say that GNUPro can generate useful, embeddable, code
> from C++ sources, using inherited classes, constructors, templates (to
> some extent), etc. I would say that using C++ allowed for a very
> generic protocol library to be created (the same code runs in Visual
> C++ on the control station, and in GNUPro's C++ in the embedded
> system), at the cost of at least double the ROM and RAM requirements
> over a "low-tech" C implementation. That is a lot when you have 512k
> of each.
>
> Martin
What accounted for the doubling in size going from C to C++?
[I'm cc'ing this to the new c++-embedded list hosted at Cygnus. Send
subscription requests to mailto:c++-embedded-request@cygnus.com .]
--
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
mailto:shiva@CompuServe.COM
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/
http://sewnsurf.home.ml.org/
http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi (Death to Spam!)
next parent reply other threads:[~1998-06-26 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <6l86kv$h9l@examiner.concentric.net>
[not found] ` <357c8b45.9310007@news.mpx.com.au>
[not found] ` <doenges.897372012@lpr.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>
[not found] ` <6mhdu7$fav$1@raven.inka.de>
[not found] ` <jEOj1.3654$9Y1.32042@eagle>
[not found] ` <3592d3ce.11558168@138.242.19.88>
[not found] ` <6mvht3$orp$1@murmel.gams.at>
[not found] ` <x7emwcz757.fsf@carette.Foo.COM>
1998-06-26 21:22 ` Ken [this message]
1998-06-29 21:31 Ken
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35947335.52D3@compuserve.com \
--to=shiva@compuserve.com \
--cc=c++-embedded@cygnus.com \
--cc=gamin@videotron.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).