Re: [ECOS] Size?

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Rosimildo daSilva]

>From: "Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com>
>To: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour@redhat.com>
>CC: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [ECOS] Size?
>Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:22:40 -0500
>
>I'm actually a little puzzled by RH's choice to go down the
>*NIX-emulation-layer route. It seems to me that it would have been much
>easier to build a set of tools that run as native Win32 applications. This
>would avoid a host of weird line termination issues, having to run inside a
>special environment, etc.
>
>I mean, compilers are pretty much the easiest software in the world to
>port... I'd be curious to know the thinking behind wrapping it all in 
>cygwin.

Boy!, I am hopeful that one of these days, the CygWin folks would
act together, and once for all, fix this line termination issue.
I have been using Cygwin for the last 3 years, and it is a major
pain the as*. Everything else works very smoothly. But, line
termination is a major issue.

Rosimildo.






_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

>>easier to build a set of tools that run as native Win32 applications. This
>>would avoid a host of weird line termination issues, having to run inside a
>>special environment, etc.
>
>Boy!, I am hopeful that one of these days, the CygWin folks would
>act together, and once for all, fix this line termination issue.

There's another thing that puzzles me: Why make the distinction between 
text-mode and binary-mode mounts at all? Why not have _only_ binary mounts, 
and tell people they MUST use a UNIX-compatible editor to edit anything 
they intend to use in cygwin? It would be so much simpler than the current 
system, wherein the same file can be handled differently according to the 
particular path you follow to get to it (argh!!!)


=== Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/

"Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein."

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Rosimildo daSilva wrote:
>
> From: "Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com>
> >I mean, compilers are pretty much the easiest software in the world to
> >port... I'd be curious to know the thinking behind wrapping it all in 
> >cygwin.

That's an interesting point of view. Why don't you load it into your
favourite Windows compiler and see for yourself the many ways in which GCC
has been written for a Unix environment. Then move onto make, and GDB, and
binutils...

> Boy!, I am hopeful that one of these days, the CygWin folks would
> act together, and once for all, fix this line termination issue.
> I have been using Cygwin for the last 3 years, and it is a major
> pain the as*. Everything else works very smoothly. But, line
> termination is a major issue.

Cygwin is open source. So are all the eCos host tools. Feel free to
contribute patches. Until then...

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

>That's an interesting point of view. Why don't you load it into your
>favourite Windows compiler and see for yourself the many ways in which GCC
>has been written for a Unix environment. Then move onto make, and GDB, and
>binutils...

I know some versions of gcc/binutils/gdb have been adapted for a DOS 
(actually i386-go32) platform. The toolchain supplied for the Winbond 
90210/90215 and 90221 chips, for instance:

C:\Gnu>gcc -v
Reading specs from C:\GNU\LIB\specs
gcc version 2.7-96q3
C:\Gnu>as -v
GNU assembler version cygnus-2.6-96q3 (hppa1.1-hp-proelf), using BFD 
version cygnus-2.6-96q3
C:\Gnu>gdb
GDB is free software and you are welcome to distribute copies of it
  under certain conditions; type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB; type "show warranty" for details.
GDB 4.15.2-96q3 (i386-go32 --target hppa1.1-hp-proelf),
Copyright 1996 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
(gdb)

As you can see from the version info, Cygnus found it possible. I recall 
reading (about a year ago) build instructions for a DOS-hosted version in 
the documentation for what used to be called egcs. The step from DOS32 to 
Win32 console-mode isn't vast.

This issue isn't worth arguing bitterly about; I'm just bringing it up 
because I know it was solved elegantly for earlier versions of the gnu 
tools and I was curious to know why RH bought into the problems of 
maintaining _both_ an emulation layer and a set of tools compiled for it, 
rather than just porting the tools to run directly under Win32. No offense 
intended.

Really, do you think I would be using your product if I despised it? :) 
eCos solves the problems I need it to solve and I'm very satisfied with it. 
When things don't operate quite the way I expect, I bitch, though - that's 
human nature.

=== Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/

"Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein."

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Robert Ritchey]

Thanks.  I'm putting 4MB on the prototype but I want to make sure that
was enough.

At 11:40 PM 3/1/01 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>Robert Ritchey wrote:
> >
> > At the moment I see only basic stuff plus PCI drivers.  No networking,
> > POSIX, ultron or other stuff,  I have a MIPS processor, SDRAM, Flash
> > and a PCI 1394 chip, thats it on the board.
>
>Assuming you are including the kernel scheduler, a ballpark guesstimate is
>60-100K
>
>Caveat emptor :).
>
>Jifl
>--
>Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
>Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

-Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ritchey
Quest Engineering & Development
1328 East Cottonwood Lane
Phoenix, AZ  85048-4765
Tel: (480) 460-2652
FAX: (480) 460-2653
E-Mail: RRRitchey@ACM.org
E-Mail: RRRitchey@Computer.org
WWW: www.users.qwest.net/~rrritchey/
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Rosimildo daSilva]

>From: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour@redhat.com>
>To: Rosimildo daSilva <rosimildo@hotmail.com>
>CC: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
>Subject: Re: [ECOS] Size?
>Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:15:14 +0000
>
>
>Cygwin is open source. So are all the eCos host tools. Feel free to
>contribute patches. Until then...

I know that. And I have done some contributions to the Open
Source community. Specially, GCC & GDB & RTEMS.

Hopefully, I'll have something to contribute to the eCos
community one of these days...

Rosimildo.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Robert Ritchey wrote:
> 
> At the moment I see only basic stuff plus PCI drivers.  No networking,
> POSIX, ultron or other stuff,  I have a MIPS processor, SDRAM, Flash
> and a PCI 1394 chip, thats it on the board.

Assuming you are including the kernel scheduler, a ballpark guesstimate is
60-100K

Caveat emptor :).

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Robert Ritchey]

At the moment I see only basic stuff plus PCI drivers.  No networking,
POSIX, ultron or other stuff,  I have a MIPS processor, SDRAM, Flash
and a PCI 1394 chip, thats it on the board.

At 08:50 PM 3/1/01 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>Robert Ritchey wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find anywhere that gives me an idea of what the footprint of
> > eCos is.  I know this varies a lot but I thought maybe someone could
> > tell me if the basic package is half a meg, a meg, several megs?
>
>I can give you a *very* rough estimate, if you say what OS features you use
>e.g. TCP/IP stack, POSIX compatibility, uItron, drivers, etc.
>
>Without that information, the answer can vary between a few K to a coupla
>meg - after all this is the embedded *Configurable* Operating System.
>
>Jifl
>--
>Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
>Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

-Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ritchey
Quest Engineering & Development
1328 East Cottonwood Lane
Phoenix, AZ  85048-4765
Tel: (480) 460-2652
FAX: (480) 460-2653
E-Mail: RRRitchey@ACM.org
E-Mail: RRRitchey@Computer.org
WWW: www.users.qwest.net/~rrritchey/
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

> > Now, if only it was possible to get thumb tools working in Windows... or
>
>Actually there's a good chance that most of your problems are specifically
>due to the fact it's Windows 98 specifically. We've often had problems with
>that and don't support it.

This laptop came bundled with NTWS4/Win2k user-select OS, but of course I 
had to format that off. Seriously, meant as a constructive piece of user 
feedback, I think it would be wonderful if RH could look at the issue(s) 
surrounding Windows 9x. I guarantee that I am not the only embedded 
developer facing this type of issue.

I'm actually a little puzzled by RH's choice to go down the 
*NIX-emulation-layer route. It seems to me that it would have been much 
easier to build a set of tools that run as native Win32 applications. This 
would avoid a host of weird line termination issues, having to run inside a 
special environment, etc.

I mean, compilers are pretty much the easiest software in the world to 
port... I'd be curious to know the thinking behind wrapping it all in cygwin.

=== Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/

"Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein."

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Jonathan Larmour]

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
> 
> This reminds - Jonathan, you posted me some instructions on building the
> gcc libs with thumb interwork support, so I could get my app built in
> -mthumb mode and eCos built in non-thumb mode. Those instructions did in
> fact work for me (Linux).

Good!
 
> Now, if only it was possible to get thumb tools working in Windows... or
> the current CVS sources to configure in Windows... grrr, mumble, mumble,
> mumble, I'm stuck with 1.3.1 and no networking again, mumble, grumble.

Actually there's a good chance that most of your problems are specifically
due to the fact it's Windows 98 specifically. We've often had problems with
that and don't support it.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

>And also the architecture - ARM vs. Thumb is a factor of two difference in
>code size straight off. BTW I doubt it is easy to guess RAM memory usage

This reminds - Jonathan, you posted me some instructions on building the 
gcc libs with thumb interwork support, so I could get my app built in 
-mthumb mode and eCos built in non-thumb mode. Those instructions did in 
fact work for me (Linux).

Now, if only it was possible to get thumb tools working in Windows... or 
the current CVS sources to configure in Windows... grrr, mumble, mumble, 
mumble, I'm stuck with 1.3.1 and no networking again, mumble, grumble.

=== Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/

"Und setzet ihr nicht das Leben ein,
Nie wird euch das Leben gewonnen sein."

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 
> Robert Ritchey wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find anywhere that gives me an idea of what the footprint of
> > eCos is.  I know this varies a lot but I thought maybe someone could
> > tell me if the basic package is half a meg, a meg, several megs?
> 
> I can give you a *very* rough estimate, if you say what OS features you use
> e.g. TCP/IP stack, POSIX compatibility, uItron, drivers, etc.

And also the architecture - ARM vs. Thumb is a factor of two difference in
code size straight off. BTW I doubt it is easy to guess RAM memory usage
though - that completely depends on the configuration and the buffer sizes
that you can choose there.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Size?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Robert Ritchey wrote:
> 
> I cannot find anywhere that gives me an idea of what the footprint of
> eCos is.  I know this varies a lot but I thought maybe someone could
> tell me if the basic package is half a meg, a meg, several megs?

I can give you a *very* rough estimate, if you say what OS features you use
e.g. TCP/IP stack, POSIX compatibility, uItron, drivers, etc.

Without that information, the answer can vary between a few K to a coupla
meg - after all this is the embedded *Configurable* Operating System.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

[ECOS] Size?

[Robert Ritchey]

I cannot find anywhere that gives me an idea of what the footprint of
eCos is.  I know this varies a lot but I thought maybe someone could
tell me if the basic package is half a meg, a meg, several megs?
Thanks.

-Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ritchey
Quest Engineering & Development
1328 East Cottonwood Lane
Phoenix, AZ  85048-4765
Tel: (480) 460-2652
FAX: (480) 460-2653
E-Mail: RRRitchey@ACM.org
E-Mail: RRRitchey@Computer.org
WWW: www.users.qwest.net/~rrritchey/
--------------------------------------------------------------------