We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
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!"; }
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.
"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:
Can someone answer my question in English please!
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 ?
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.
The problem you are going to run into if you use the Ceibo + Keil and you reply
void main(void) { printf("Hello world\n"); while(1); }
where does the Ceibo C++ come in, in the above mr smokied sardine
Erik
void main(void) { printf("Hello world\n");
while(1); }
Oh dear, here we go again.
I quoted two sentences as follows:
You snipped this down to half a sentence:
The problem you are going to run into if you use the Ceibo + Keil
Thereby removing all the content I was actually replying to.
You then quoted part of my response, this time snipping out all the text that gave meaning to the code snippet.
Go back and read my post again. If you still do not understand it let me know and I will explain it to you in whatever level of detail is necessary.
I do not give a hoot about your post, the subject of this thread is NOT that printf works in C, which we all know, but C++ on the '51.
Erik,
I think in this case you really have missed Jack's point. He was showing the m51 file to indicate the using printf() in Keil didn't increase the code by 10kB, but rather by 1kBish which was an order-of-magnitude less "badness" than the original statement. It had nothing to do with C++, but was just continuing illustration of what he sees as bad in the responses on this forum -- namely that sometimes the estimates people provide from experience can be exaggerated and overly-emphatic.
Also, just as a point of reference for your future usage: The name he's chosen (Jack Sprat) doesn't have anything to do with sardines. It's from an old nursery-rhyme (though I don't know it's origin) that begins like this: "Jack Sprat could eat no fat. His wife could eat no lean."
-Jay Daniel
Also, just as a point of reference for your future usage: The name he's chosen (Jack Sprat) doesn't have anything to do with sardines.
I know that, but sardines are canned :)
"[Jack Sprat] was showing the m51 file to indicate the using printf() in Keil didn't increase the code by 10kB, but rather by 1kBish"
But did it show that?
It showed that the size of ?PR?PRINTF?PRINTF is 1K-ish, but it doesn't consider what other stuff may also get pulled-in as a result of having printf that wouldn't other wise have been included.
I haven't had the time for a detailed look at the map file, but the summary line from building a simple "Hello, world" example as shown indicates that the total CODE space usage is on the order of 2K...
It probably also varies with the Memory Model chosen...
So: still not 10K, but it certainly does show that a simple printf can easily use up virtually the whole CODE size limitation of the Evaluation version...!