[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [f-cpu] Yet Another Upload



On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 04:18:32AM +0200, Yann Guidon wrote:
[...]
> >I'd really like to get rid of m4.
> >
> 
> huh, really ? i find this very handy, though ....

M4 is probably one of the most powerful tools ever.  But it's only a
text processor.

> >In particular, I don't like the fact
> >that we have to run m4 every time we modify the configuration.
> >
> how often do you change the configuration ?

I did it once or twice when it still was a VHDL file.  And I have my
own files for the C side (most notably fcpu_opcodes.h) that I change
directly because (a) the m4 stuff wasn't complete at the time I wrote it,
and (b) I didn't want to mess with it.

We will have to change it, however, when we start assigning opcodes
(I only did a preliminary assignment in the fctools package).

> >I prefer to change the VHDL sources directly.  C headers can be generated from
> >VHDL -- all we need is a procedure that takes all the definitions and
> >prints them in C format.  Since VHDL has text i/o capabilities, that
> >shouldn't be too hard to do.  (Note that it would also work the other
> >way round -- edit C and generate VHDL -- but since VHDL is our primary
> >source, I prefer to generate the C stuff.)  Of course we must distribute
> >pre-built C headers, in case someone has no VHDL tools and wants to
> >install only the software.  But that's not a problem either.
> >  
> >
> 
> i'm not very happy with this solution : it will obfuscate the sources 
> too much !!!

Huh?  I think it makes it cleaner.  I guess only few people really
understand m4 (mostly sendmail admins ;).

We already use two languages: C and VHDL.  Both of them can handle the
conversion easily.  Adding a third language is overkill.

> First, not everybody will want to use it because it uses VHDL, and "SW 
> people"
> who simply want to run an emulator won't want to fiddle with it.

Therefore, they get pre-built C headers with the distribution.

> Second, with the M4 solution, the files are available in source form, 
> very similar to the target form.
> Using VHDL to generate the files will make the original form very very 
> oscure, full
> of
>    write ("blahblagblah", somevariable, "blablah");
> so i think that m4 is not a bad trade-off.

It's more like

	print_c_define("name_of_variable", name_of_variable);

and similar.

> Of course, if you find a better solution, i'd be interested to see it :-)
> like, huh, you want to reimplement m4 with VHDL ? :-P

Of course not.

[tools]
> and what about GHDL ? :-) "it's free, too" :-P

I don't have an Ada compiler to build it.
And I doubt that it is complete yet.

[...]
> >VHDL code, manual and emulators are badly desynced.
> >
> obviously.
> maybe because different persons do different things, right ?

Yep.  Therefore I suggest that the authors/maintainers of execution
units also maintain the corresponding manual pages.

> >I'll take care of the emulators,
> >and I think it would be wise to review the manual pages as well --
> >at least those corresponding to the EUs I wrote myself.  I just need a
> >copy of the current sources.
> >  
> >
> i believe the latest versions are available easily from Cédric's site.

At seul.org?

> >>>Third, I'll have to update the assembler and the emulator.
> >>>Finally, someone can update the machine description for gcc.
> >>>
> >>As you probably know, i have returned back to plain old electronics to get
> >>some pocket money from time to time. Now, i have almost all tools to make
> >>decent PCBs in small series at decent prices. When the first FC0s will 
> >>come out of fundry, we'll be able to use nice development kits :-)
> >>    
> >>
> >Will they run Linux? ;)
> >  
> >
> except slashdotters, who really cares ? :-P

I do, and I *never* visit /. :-P

> frankly, i have recently started to master certain techniques and 
> electronic technologies,
> so if we ever get to the fundry, the outcome will be really interesting 
> and the
> PCBs will have interesting features...

Like...?

> >>But there is still too much work to be done on the SW side; so we'll 
> >>have to "wait a bit" ...
> >>    
> >>
> >Hmm... we have a gcc port, an assembler, a linker and two emulators.
> >
> do they all work together ? are they all correctly updated and maintained ?
> are they easy to install and use ?....

Yes, yes, and yes.  The latest VHDL improvements aren't integrated yet,
but they will be in the next fctools release.

I have installed fctools and fcpu-gcc on my system, and I can compile,
assemble, link and run C programs with it.  There just is no libc yet,
and system call support in the emulator is limited, but it's enough
for a `hello, world' style program -- that is, enough to begin with.

I have already started to add better system call support; I'm going to
finish it when I'm back in `C mode'.

> >That's all SW people need in the first place.  I'm currently concentrating
> >on the HW side again -- since many people can do SW development but
> >only few seem to be able to write VHDL code, I won't waste my time doing
> >software development (of course I'll maintain my software, but VHDL has
> >higher priority now).
> >
> i'll maybe come back to hardcore F-CPU dev in many months.
> In the meantime, i am doing uC and DSP.

I guess it's necessary to earn some money now and then...

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/