public inbox for crossgcc@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christopher Bahns <chris@bahns.com>
To: crossgcc@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: M68K Simulation recommendations?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:45:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <39DA1B70.9EE36B9B@bahns.com> (raw)

Hello,
I am working on a project that involves three boxes communicating with
each other over standard data links (RS232, RS485, and other similar
links). There is a display (with an associated LCD panel and keypad), a
communications adapter (three or four different communication
interfaces), and a controller (the one that does all the work). Two use
a Motorola 68306 (68EC000 core) and the other uses a Motorola 68331
(CPU32 core).

I want a simulation environment/framework that allows me to run the
entire system, including simulations for all associated devices and
communication links, under Windows NT 4.0, preferably, but I may be
interested in software that runs on other systems so I can find out if
and when it might be ported to NT (perhaps I can).

I *think* I'm looking for something that already provides simulation for
the processor itself, and I just have to implement simulations of my
devices and communications interfaces in a way that is compatible with
the given simulation. Even, better, I'd like to find a embedded
simulation solution that is a bit of a standard, so that perhaps my
device manufacturers (e.g. Seiko makes the LCD panel) may be inclined to
implement their device simulations to benefit all of their customers.

I have done a bit of research, and found some promising results (BSVC,
diab-sds, and maybe a couple of others), but BSVC is naturally free and
unsupported (which might be ok -- it uses Tcl/Tk which I have not yet
learned), and the information on the commercial products all claim
theirs to be the best (the SDS products sound promising but are probably
expensive). I might be willing to spend some money, but more on the
order of hundreds (or "a hundred") as opposed to thousands.

So, can anyone share any real-world experience? I don't think I need a
cycle-accurate simulator, since I assume that the complexity of such
simulators would demand a high price.

I shall continue my research and listen to any responses. I'll post back
if I find anything interesting.

Thanks a lot for any help!
Chris


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

                 reply	other threads:[~2000-10-03 10:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=39DA1B70.9EE36B9B@bahns.com \
    --to=chris@bahns.com \
    --cc=crossgcc@sourceware.cygnus.com \
    /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).