From: "Steve Fairhead" 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" 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)