Message-ID: <3868D10E.B2AE88BF@iclinks.com> From: Steve Drake X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: djgpp appropriate for embedded system? References: <385ACA26 DOT D9C9FC40 AT iclinks DOT com> <83s40j$pro$1 AT newsreader2 DOT core DOT theplanet DOT net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 47 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:02:38 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.162.65.252 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT verio DOT net X-Trace: nuq-read.news.verio.net 946393360 209.162.65.252 (Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:02:40 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:02:40 GMT Organization: Verio To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Well, in this case it is an existing system that has been around for several years. We have been using Borland C++ and a debugger from Paradigm. The availability of these tools is getting questionable, however, and we are looking for other options. DJGPP appeals because we need a long term solution that is cheap/free and can't be pulled away from us in the future because a vendor decides to stop supporting it. We are providing somewhat general purpose hardware and development tools to our customers, and they write the final applications. Choosing the O/S - based approach has complicated things, but has provided some flexibilty too (having a command-line and file system is nice). For the next generation of our product, we are thinking about using Linux (on a faster processor with more RAM and Flash). It would be nice to get away from the limitations of DOS. Linux seems to fit our requirements: low cost or free (O/S and tools) multitasking long term availability TCP/IP support Windows CE might work too, but I kinda hate to be at the mercy of Microsoft. Steve Drake Steve Fairhead wrote: > > "Steve Drake" 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" .) > 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)