I,ve installed the Compiler and I can,t get even the simplest code to compile properely.
Anyone know where the fix for this bug is?
Or is it a limit of the demonstration version?
void main(void) { cout << "Hello world!"; }
what is it the compileer you installled?
keil c????
if you be answer keil c then code you give is bad and not compiler
you code is c++ but compile is c
c not thinking about cout like this you be not good and give errror
Can someone answer my question in English please!
I do not need to define narrow minded - Just use your favourite search engine.
I know what it means. I'm just very curious to know what you think it means.
It is an academcial goal to use as high-level language as possible for all development. It a practical rule to not use a higher-level tool than the target can handle in a good way. You call our arguments academical???
Many of us _are_ experienced C++ developers, which is something you seems to constantly ignore.
Don't you wonder just a little bit why I claim to be an experienced C++ developer, and still says that C is a better language to use for a '51 chip?
Don't you get a feeling that there _may_ be parts of the equation that you haven't seen yet?
How long was it since you left school?
How many real projects (embedded or not) have you worked with?
Haven't you noticed that real projects tend to have a large number of mutually exclusive requests - something that didn't exist in school assignments. In real projects, you always have to compromise!
"I do not need to define narrow minded - Just use your favourite search engine"
Just tried doing a search for that on my favourite search engine and got nothing!?
Trouble is, my favourite search engine is http://www.booble.com ;)
Maybe you should have been more specific.
I noticed the following comment upthread:
As I have said before: The problem you are going to run into if you use the Ceibo + Keil combination is that the evaluation version of Keil C51 only allows a code size of 4 kB. Any complex string formatting function (this includes printf and cout) will easily need upwards of 10 kB code space.
Compiling the following program with a recent version of C51:
#include <stdio.h> void main(void) { printf("Hello world\n"); while(1); }
Gave the following map:
BASE START END USED MEMORY CLASS ========================================================== X:000000H X:000000H X:007FFFH XDATA X:000000H X:000000H X:007FFFH HDATA C:000000H C:000000H C:007FFFH 000438H CODE C:000000H C:000000H C:007FFFH CONST C:000000H C:000000H C:007FFFH ECODE B00:0000H C:000000H C:007FFFH HCONST I:000000H I:000000H I:0000FFH 000001H IDATA I:000000H I:000000H I:00007FH 00001CH DATA I:000020H.0 I:000020H.0 I:00002FH.7 000001H.1 BIT
And in particular:
000003H 00035EH 00035CH BYTE UNIT CODE ?PR?PRINTF?PRINTF
Which shows the original statement to be out by more than an order of magnitude.
Presuming the person who made this statement is reasonably familiar with C51, how are we supposed to have any confidence in the commentary on the unsuitability of C++ when it would appear that none of the contributors have actually used any of the available implementations? Should we assume that their 'experience' really is sufficient?
If I am wrong in my assumption that none of the contributors to this thread have used C++ on an 8051 please do correct me. If you can provide any actual data to support the hypothesis that C++ is a non-starter on an 8051 I would be genuinely interested.
Jack,
Finally someone responds with a positive point of view :)
Up to that time all responses have been leaning towards the "I know better than you because I've got experience" style.
What there seems to have been lacking is the desire to try something that they are unfamiliar with.
The words new, dog, tricks and old in a different order seem to be appropriate for some here.
Note that JS showed an example saying that the Keil C compiler + linker (the buggy tool you have been recommended to use) is quite good.
That should not be extrapolated into believing that the '51 is a processor well suited to C++.
There is still problems with dyanmic memory, virtual methods, templated code etc.
I did not say, nor have I assumed, that the 8051 is well suited to C++.
I am hoping (and increasingly believing) that it CAN be successfully used.
Some investigation I have done has revealed that there is even a Java VM that runs on a derivative (the Dallas 80C400).
Java is interpreted, C++ is compiled. Both have the problems that you mention.
So if (yet another) supplier provides tools for such a high level language to be used, it implies that there are requirements that can be satisfied with such tools.
"Some investigation I have done has revealed that there is even a Java VM that runs on a derivative (the Dallas 80C400)."
True.
"TINI is available online at TINI Store for $67.00 which includes 1 MByte SRAM and 512 KBytes of Flash ROM."
Tiny footprint...
At this point I can contribute some real-life experience.
I have developed a couple of applications using Java on the Dallas 80C400 - Their name for the technology is TINI.
I had previously done a lot of work (more than 15 years worth) primarily in assembler and C on 8051 and V55 cores.
TINI was my first attempt of using such a high level language on the 8051 derivative (albeit a vastly souped-up one).
The result - The projects were written in time, to cost and within the constraints laid down by the hardware.
Fortunately, they were not time critical applications and they performed their function adequately and (most importantly) within specification requirements.
Then came another project.
The management wanted me to use the same basic platform; i.e., the 80C400 with TINI. Knowing what the project entailed, I was reluctant to us TINI on this project but I had my orders and decided to go along with the decision.
It very quickly became apparent that the setup just was not man enough for the job. I decided (unknown to the management at that time) to rewrite the application in C.
The result was that the application ran some 400 time faster in various critical sections than the equivalent TINI code. Yes, I do actually mean 400 times faster!
Fortunately (for me), the management agreed that I had made the right decision.
So ... my advice is this:
Yes you CAN consider and use C, C++, JAVA or any other high level language, but please also consider whether the resultant application is going to work in a satisfactory and acceptable manner for the customer.
Ok,
It's becoming clear that I can write on the 8051 in C++.
It may be inefficient code and need more resources than code which others write. But if I can write an application quickly with the confidence brought about by using tools I know then it should be worth the wrath of some forum members.
I don't understand why there are some guys that are so negative about certain suggestions.
Ok, Mr Henry Ford wanted to make money but part of the dream was to give transport to the masses.
You do know about the dodge lawsuit, right? He was forced to continue to seek profit rather than divert it into more production to "help the masses." His dream was overrode by profit demands of being a corporation.
"I don't understand why there are some guys that are so negative about certain suggestions."
Trying to compile C++ with a C compiler:
I,ve installed the Compiler and I can,t get even the simplest code to compile properely. Anyone know where the fix for this bug is?
On receiving an answer that it is a C compiler:
On experience with embedded compilers:
Why is the demonstration version so limited? It looks very weak! Microsofts free compiler can do so much more!
On receiving a good description of the problem, a note that the M$ compiler can't build for the '51 target, and that the C51 can't build C++ and that a trivial change to the code (to make it C code) would make the example buildable:
Someone give a more positive (and helpful) response please!
After having received a number of descriptions that C and C++ are different languages:
Why have a demo version that won,t compile my simple program?
After receiving a further note that C and C++ are different languages, and that a C compiler just can't compile C++:
Anyway, I need to know of alternatives and not just get you can,t do it style comments.
On the question: Can't you switch to C? Do you really need C++?
You make these comments without knowledge or appreciation of the requirement. My contract requires me to produce code for an 8052 controller board that has a keypad and a display. I need serious options please.
This implies that the chip 8052, or the keypad or the display is a direct implication why C++ is a requirement and not an option. It also implies that the answers you have received are not serious.
After receiving a number of notes that C++ are not the best of languages for the lowest end of microcontrollers, you translate unsuitable into impossible:
The general view from this forum is that C++ an the 8052 don't mix.
From then on, it's not meaningful to follow the thread anymore.
As you can (probably not) see, you entered this thread in a very narrow-minded way. The perfect way of entering a forum and ask questions...
It's becoming clear that I can write on the 8051 in C++
It's becoming clear now ? I mentioned that there are C++ compilers (not free, neither beer nor speech) in my posting yesterday. Along with the fact that Keil C51 is not a C++ compiler, and that what you considered a "bug" was actually a lack of reading and understanding the documentation.
It took a while to get through ?
void main(void) { printf("Hello world!"); }
This is a "C" Compiler not a "C++" Compiler. And no they are not the same thing.
No. It's become overabundantly clear that you believe you can use C++ on an 8051. Now that was pretty evident from the beginning, but that didn't keep you from stressing this point at every opportunity.
But if I can write an application quickly
If you can do it. But there has been negligible evidence that you really understand the task you're so convinced you're capable of completing. Instead you blame every failure of your attempts at implementing your ideas on others --- the tools, their makers, the people in this forum. Something and somebody must obviously be faulty, incompetent and/or "academic", as long as you can deny it might be your fault. In my country this attitude is usually summarized by an old adage: If the farmer can't swim, his swim trunks are at fault.
with the confidence brought about by using tools I know
... except that you rather evidently don't know the tools relevant to the job at hand.
then it should be worth the wrath of some forum members.
You're mistaken if you think what's being directed at you qualifies as wrath. It's more like commiseration, for now.
Indeed, you don't understand. But you're wrong about what it is you don't understand. You utterly fail to grasp the idea that people telling you that your suggestions are bad might be doing so not because they're "negative", but because their experience taught them.
While pretending to ask a question, you really came here with a prejudice expecting people to provide arguments supporting it. But then something happened that you hadn't contemplated before: people gave you answers that disagreed with your pre-set opinion. Well, guess what, that's one of the consequences of asking a question: you lose the right not to have to listen to answers you don't like.
Wisdom comes not from asking questions, but from actually listening to answers.
"I've now noticed that IAR produce a C/C++ compiler for the 8051."
Note that it's not a full C++ Compiler - it's a version of Embeddeded C++
"Embedded C++ offers a subset of C++. It excludes size and/or speed consuming C++ features that are not relevant for embedded systems. Embedded C++ lacks the following features of C++..." For more, see www.iar.com/.../p7371_eng.php
I don't know how much that might "cramp your style" if you're used to a full-blown C++ compiler...
I don't know how much that might "cramp your style"
I'll get my own bias out of the way first: "Embedded C++" was really a political move. It was created by (in my opinion) a bunch of lazy compiler vendors. C++ is a *** to compile at all, much less do a good job. And a lot of people simply didn't want to try. So, "Embedded C++" is really more about excluding newer and/or more difficult to compile features, rather than any real concern over "efficiency" or appropriateness for embedded programming. (Modern C++ compilers efficiently implement just about all of the features EC++ excludes.) That's just the excuse by which the limitation was sold.
Besides, even if feature X were harmful in embedded programming, you could simply not use it. (Compare with, say, bitfields in regular C -- widely regarded as not worth the effort and unused. That doesn't mean we need an "Embedded C" standard officially excluding it to give the marketing guys an excuse...)
On to details, from the IAR website, though I've inserted numbers for reference:
Embedded C++ lacks the following features of C++:
1) Templates 2) Multiple inheritance 3) Exception handling 4) Runtime type information 5) New cast syntax (operators dynamic_cast, static_cast, reinterpret_cast, and const_cast) 6) Namespaces
7) The Standard Template Library (STL) is excluded 8) Streams, strings, and complex numbers are supported without the use of templates 9) Library features which relate to exception handling and runtime type information (headers <except>, <stdexcept> and <typeinfo>), are excluded
(1), which implies (7), is critically limited to a "real C++" programmer. There's nothing inherently bad about templates. Poor use of them can bloat your code. But then, poor use of #defines can bloat your code, for much the same reason. That's a problem with the programmer, not the language feature.
(2) exists for a very specific reason in the real world. If you're an academic OO purist and you always have full source for every scrap of your project, you sneer at MI. If, on the other hand, you ever use a commercial library as well as writing your own code, you're often faced with the problem of inheriting from two separate trees of objects. MI is the onlly answer. It's also quite useful in some specific idioms, such as the mixin or the "abstract base class" -- what Java calls an "interfere" and which they added back in after their single-inheritance OO purity proved impractical.
(3) Pretty darn useful in an embedded system to make sure everything gets cleaned up with things go wrong. A robust system in EC++ is just going to have to reinvent this wheel from scratch, and won't have the power of a language feature. Early implementations could be bloated and slow, but compiler vendors learned how to implement it and programmers learned proper idioms like RAII for its use.
(5) Pure bias against new features as far as I can tell. If you do away with RTTI, then dynamic_cast does you no good. But the other three are just the three uses of traditional C casts, and there's no reason from the compiler vendor's point of view that they're hard to support. The only difference is that the syntax makes the programmer's intent obvious, where "(typename)" is sometimes too powerful for your own good. Like I said, lazy compiler vendors.
(6) An incredibly useful feature for anything more than the simplest program. One of the biggest gripes about C was always its lack of depth in structure: you're either static and hidden, or public and completely global. Hence the development of coding tics like always putting Module Code Abbreviations in mca_MyFunc() to try to avoid clashes in the global namespace, and conventions about _symbol and __symbol to hide stuff needed in your libraries. Those are just a poor man's attempt to create namespaces that clutters the code because they don't have proper language support. Again, the feature is not at all hard to implement, but it was newfangled at the time and the lazy compiler vendors strike again. They didn't already have it working at the time they defined the EC++ spec, out it went, baby and bathwater alike.
(8) OMG! A feature you can actually argue is not terribly useful in the majority of embedded work. But then, it also falls squarely under Stroustrup's "don't pay for what you don't use" principle. If you don't use the complex type or a string, why then, you won't link in any of libraries, would you? Wouldn't cost a thing for people that didn't need it. (Did I mention I find the EC++ backers extremely lazy?)
View all questions in Keil forum