From:	"Steve Fairhead" <steve AT sfbladesign DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: djgpp appropriate for embedded system?
Date:	Thu, 23 Dec 1999 03:13:07 -0000
Organization:	SFD
Lines:	34
Message-ID:	<83s40j$pro$1@newsreader2.core.theplanet.net>
References:	<385ACA26 DOT D9C9FC40 AT iclinks DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem49.barney.pol.co.uk
X-Trace:	newsreader2.core.theplanet.net 945918803 26488 195.92.7.49 (23 Dec 1999 03:13:23 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	23 Dec 1999 03:13:23 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Steve Drake" <sdrake AT iclinks DOT com> wrote in message
news:385ACA26 DOT D9C9FC40 AT iclinks DOT com...
> I am considering using djgpp to develop apps for a small commercial
embedded system:
>
> 386EX 33MHz
> 2, 4 or 8 Meg flash, looks like a disk drive
> 512K or 1Meg RAM
> ROM-DOS 6.22 (DOS 6.22 compatible)
> minimum of 2 serial ports (up to 7)

From direct experience I'd suggest your application might be far simpler and
far more controllable going fully embedded, e.g. with an H8 cpu and just a C
compiler. What is the OS doing for you that you can't do yourself, other
than making things as complicated as a desktop system, which it's not?

I spent almost a year trying to get an embedded DOS system to be reliable
(lots of development tool hassles, serial port hardware & library bugs,
over-complex hardware and software). I then spent 10 days getting it running
perfectly on an H8 eval board, simply and cleanly. (The customer had
insisted on the previous approach because it was considered "easier" <g>.)
Oh, and it'll be cheaper and more future-proof too. The PC absolutely sucks
for embedded work.

Steve

--
Steve Fairhead
http://www.sfdesign.co.uk
(remove the bla from the bogus reply-to)

- Raw text -