I have uVision 4 (not the latest version) and my company is evaluating a unit test tool. One of the processors that the tool needs to support is the C8051F580 processor from SiLabs. The unit test tool uses uVision as the tool to load the test files into and perform a uVision simulation using our processor setup. To begin the evaluation, I tried to use one of the Keil examples, build it in uVision, then run the simulator on the code. I believe that I've configured uVision correctly for the device but when I try to run the simulator, there are no selections under the "Peripherals" tab. Am I doing something wrong or is there some additional software that needs to be downloaded for uVision to perform the simulation. Note that I did do a search on the Keil sight and found the SiLabs driver (which I installed) but nothing under the knowledge base or the forums that talked about this issue. The example I used was the "CSAMPLE" code that built without issue.
no, it is not, have a look at e.g. Atmel, Anlog Dedv, Nordic
Since we are comparing HW debug interfaces: Which 51 with on-chip debug hardware are you refering too?
Oh, you're absolutley right. This should be better:
Yes, same way as other manufacturer's 51 HW does. Why SiLabs is 'best' then? Answer: Wrong, it is clearly not, it is all the same (when using 51 HW), as you found out now.
Wrong, it is clearly not, it is all the same, no, it is not, have a look at e.g. Atmel, Anlog Dedv, Nordic
he SILabs HW interfaces with Keil/IAR?SDCC and can perform all operations those softwares can.
Yes, same way as other manufacturer's HW does. Why SiLabs is 'best' then? Answer: Wrong, it is clearly not, it is all the same, as you found out now.
the SILabs HW interfaces with Keil/IAR?SDCC and can perform all operations those softwares can. What nore should I know?
Ah, lack of knowledge, thanks for clarification.
But the hardware interface does not automatically turn into the best because of free software the SILabs HW debug is very good, I know of none better.
yes, I do, but some are 'forced' to use free software, and for those the SILabs stuff is reasonably good. It is well known that this forum is frequented by people from "no budget at all" to "make sure you buy the best" Yes. But the hardware interface does not automatically turn into the best because of free software. The hardware debug interface is as good as other manufacturer's implementations, there is nothing better in it and nothing worse, IMO.
I, once were tasked to choose and buy a handful of compilers and you can not believe how fast the issues I raised to the various suppliers got resolved. Try that with free software Agreed in general, but this is a KEIL forum: I had to wait 7 month for a debugger fix (regular crashes, perfectly reproducable). I had to get really angry to get that fix. And yes, I paid for that 'support'. Then I reported a bug in AX51 (confirmed by KEIL) in january...
Free means you have no leverage. You're beholden on the developer to care about your problem. As a developer I don't care about your niche requirement or change that doesn't impact my needs, especially when you haven't paid, don't want to pay, and are a whiner. If "free" and "open" attracts anyone it's whiny losers, who can't fix their own issues, and often living in their parent's basement as a result.
Yes, and you dislike it so much
yes, I do, but some are 'forced' to use free software, and for those the SILabs stuff is reasonably good. It is well known that this forum is frequented by people from "no budget at all" to "make sure you buy the best"
As you see in my posts on this subject, my basic complaint is that with free software you can not threaten to withhold money if your issue is not resolved.
I, once were tasked to choose and buy a handful of compilers and you can not believe how fast the issues I raised to the various suppliers got resolved. Try that with free software.
the old adage "you get what you pay for" still holds.
Erik
At risk of speaking out of turn and in eriks defense, The SiLags hardware interface via the C2 or JTag interface (depending on the processor) is almost as good for support of step debugging and instruction tracing as supplied by more expensive means like ICE. The limitation on breakpoints is a little problematic and I would like them to provide a few more in future designs but this method is far superior to the old tried and true method of breakpoint support via opcode insertion.
OK, OK, should have seen that one coming
SILabs, at least, provide a free software interface to debug their chips, in addition to connect to Keil
with a link to the documentation of the associated software I have no interest in a datasheet, that tell me nothing about debugging (other than maybe "can do". I need the "debugger manual"
mention one
TI: CC1111
What exactly makes them best? What is missing in other '51 "hardware debugging interfaces"?
mention one, - with a link to the documentation of the associated software - and I'll answer
View all questions in Keil forum