From richard at imagecraft.com Fri Jul 18 00:34:14 2008 From: richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) Date: Fri Jul 18 01:36:32 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog Message-ID: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> I have started an ImageCraft blog at http://imagecraft.wordpress.com/ Link will be added to our website soon. // richard On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site. [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ] From jim at fiocca.net Fri Jul 18 07:24:51 2008 From: jim at fiocca.net (Jim Fiocca) Date: Fri Jul 18 08:27:25 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> Message-ID: <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it is cheaper and less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise of upgrading the IDE. I'd be happy if the product didn't have an IDE at all (I only use it from the command line, with a Makefile). I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. My 2 cents, Jim Richard Man wrote: > I have started an ImageCraft blog at http://imagecraft.wordpress.com/ > Link will be added to our website soon. > > // richard > On-line orders, support, > and listservers available on web site. > [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all > previous replies in your msgs. ] > _______________________________________________ > Icc-mot mailing list > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot From ekarpicz at freemail.lt Fri Jul 18 09:21:56 2008 From: ekarpicz at freemail.lt (Edward Karpicz) Date: Fri Jul 18 10:24:32 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> Message-ID: <31B5528FFE7E418B8A54A45C1CDFB8C7@REKS> I also think IDE is good enough. I'm using it and it's good enough as is. Of course some things could be improved: Bookmarks navigation is little odd. No keyboard shortcut for go to bookmark window. Go to bookmrak window has odd combobox instead of dozen of radioboxes or something. It's fast to jump to one selected bookmark, it's slow to select another. There's no shortcut for switch between two editor tabs. Ctrl-Tab and Shift-Ctrl-Tab are not very useful, mouse is better to select one of 5-10 opened files. But keyboard shortcut for switch between last used 2 tabs would be nice. Terminal window. I like it's integrated, but terminal-download is something. It shouldn't use 100% of CPU. When IDE starts, for some reason it empties whole or a part of defICC12.prj in bin folder. When IDE is *normally* closed (and that happens not every time because our windows PCs sometimes hang for some reasons) defICC12.prj is written back. Tools menu is stored in defICC12.prj. What happens when my machine hangs? Right, I lose my tools menu. Try terminating icc12ide.exe process and you'll see the same. Of course compiler, libs, double, printf, XGATE just assembler, far pointers, far data were all mentioned in the past enough times to mention it again. Regards Edward ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fiocca" To: "Discussion List for ICC08/11/12/16 users. You do NOT need to subscribe toicc-announce if you are a member of this." Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog > Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the blog, > but I guess I'll give it anyway. > > Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the option > to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured IDE with > integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it is cheaper and > less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise of upgrading the IDE. > I'd be happy if the product didn't have an IDE at all (I only use it from > the command line, with a Makefile). > > I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and adding > support for such things as XGATE, for example. > > My 2 cents, > Jim > > > Richard Man wrote: >> I have started an ImageCraft blog at http://imagecraft.wordpress.com/ >> Link will be added to our website soon. >> >> // richard >> On-line orders, support, >> and listservers available on web site. >> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all >> previous replies in your msgs. ] >> _______________________________________________ >> Icc-mot mailing list >> Icc-mot@imagecraft.com >> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot > > _______________________________________________ > Icc-mot mailing list > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot > From lance at rapidware.com Fri Jul 18 09:32:56 2008 From: lance at rapidware.com (Lance Smith) Date: Fri Jul 18 10:35:27 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> Message-ID: <003501c8e8f3$ef560c70$1700a8c0@LBSD820> I'd like to add that having a tool to generate the makefile is a very good thing. That is all that I use the IDE for, but I REALLY appreciate having it for that. As you know, all that we need to give it are the C source files and it figures out all of the dependencies, and does a very good job of it, better than the command line tool MAKEDEP.EXE that I have used with a "make" tool in the past. Then a good general purpose code editor, such as Codewright can read the makefile and bring in the results to create a nice working environment. Providing interfaces to popular editors is the best way to go. Not sure if that's what you mean by VS Express, but of course there is also SlickEdit UltraEdit, etc. (many still use Codewright) Editor-lite/compiler-heavy is the way to go for me too. That makes 4 cents. Best -- Lance -----Original Message----- From: icc-mot-bounces@imagecraft.com [mailto:icc-mot-bounces@imagecraft.com] On Behalf Of Jim Fiocca Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:25 AM To: Discussion List for ICC08/11/12/16 users. You do NOT need to subscribe toicc-announce if you are a member of this. Subject: Re: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it is cheaper and less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise of upgrading the IDE. I'd be happy if the product didn't have an IDE at all (I only use it from the command line, with a Makefile). I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. My 2 cents, Jim Richard Man wrote: > I have started an ImageCraft blog at http://imagecraft.wordpress.com/ > Link will be added to our website soon. > > // richard > On-line orders, support, > and listservers available on web site. > [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all > previous replies in your msgs. ] > _______________________________________________ > Icc-mot mailing list > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot _______________________________________________ Icc-mot mailing list Icc-mot@imagecraft.com http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot From richard-lists at imagecraft.com Fri Jul 18 13:58:19 2008 From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) Date: Fri Jul 18 15:00:40 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> Message-ID: <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com> At 07:24 AM 7/18/2008, Jim Fiocca wrote: >Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the >blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. > >Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the >option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured >IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it >is cheaper and less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise >of upgrading the IDE. I'd be happy if the product didn't have an >IDE at all (I only use it from the command line, with a Makefile). Hi JIm, I am always looking for input. Your points are well taken, and our core competence and core focus will always be the compiler support. There is no worry in that regard. Hence the decision not to rewrite the IDE ourselves, that'd really take resources away from our core competence. >I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and >adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. We attempted to add XGate asm support more than a year ago. It's a difficult to understand piece of work, what with the convoluted HC12 expanded addressing and the S12X addition etc. In the end, very few people care. Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either. Business wise, the sad reality with Freescale is that Freescale's main focus is on its automotive customers, and on the other hand, it is effectively killing its third party vendors by giving away free compilers. // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) From jim at fiocca.net Wed Jul 30 14:37:33 2008 From: jim at fiocca.net (Jim Fiocca) Date: Wed Jul 30 15:40:20 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com> Message-ID: <4890DF1D.3030904@fiocca.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://dragonsgate.net/pipermail/icc-mot/attachments/20080730/5ca37a0d/attachment.html From robmilne at web.net Wed Jul 30 18:44:21 2008 From: robmilne at web.net (Rob Milne) Date: Wed Jul 30 18:45:52 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <4890DF1D.3030904@fiocca.net> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com> <4890DF1D.3030904@fiocca.net> Message-ID: <489118F5.9040106@web.net> Hi Richard, I'll second that sentiment. Migrating to xgate is the logical progression for my projects. -rob Jim Fiocca wrote: > Richard, > > I spoke with my local Freescale rep about your comment > " Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either". > His reply was > "Xgate is definitely sticking around. The S12X is the most popular > automotive part we have." > > And regarding your comment > "Freescale ... is effectively killing its third party vendors by giving > away free compilers." > The 32K limit for free CodeWarrior use makes it not very well suited for > S12(X) users - one should probably use an S08 part if using that little > memory. > > Please reconsider adding an XGate assembler to ICC12. > > Thanks, > Jim > > > Richard Man wrote: >> At 07:24 AM 7/18/2008, Jim Fiocca wrote: >>> Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the >>> blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. >>> >>> Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the >>> option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured >>> IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it is >>> cheaper and less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise of >>> upgrading the IDE. I'd be happy if the product didn't have an IDE at >>> all (I only use it from the command line, with a Makefile). >> >> Hi JIm, I am always looking for input. Your points are well taken, and >> our core competence and core focus will always be the compiler >> support. There is no worry in that regard. >> >> Hence the decision not to rewrite the IDE ourselves, that'd really >> take resources away from our core competence. >> >>> I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and >>> adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. >> >> We attempted to add XGate asm support more than a year ago. It's a >> difficult to understand piece of work, what with the convoluted HC12 >> expanded addressing and the S12X addition etc. In the end, very few >> people care. Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either. >> >> Business wise, the sad reality with Freescale is that Freescale's main >> focus is on its automotive customers, and on the other hand, it is >> effectively killing its third party vendors by giving away free >> compilers. >> >> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, >> please use richard at imagecraft.com) >> _______________________________________________ >> Icc-mot mailing list >> Icc-mot@imagecraft.com >> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Icc-mot mailing list > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot From jpdi at free.fr Thu Jul 31 00:03:56 2008 From: jpdi at free.fr (jpdi) Date: Thu Jul 31 01:06:45 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <489118F5.9040106@web.net> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com><4890DF1D.3030904@fiocca.net> <489118F5.9040106@web.net> Message-ID: Hi, Richard, I'm very late in my development, especially under XGate. I agree with the other mails below : I NEED XGate support. Some things about editor : I don't use integrated editor, preferring TextPad, using it with other compilers I use. So it's great to be able to choose the editor I want. Anyway, I use IDE to compile and see errors, and a double-click on an error launch my editor to the line where the compiler doesn't understand. It's great for me, and it's enough. About IDE, I saw than IDE modify the .src file when opening a project file, and delete all path I wrote. ICC12 version 6 didn't that, allowing me to write absolute path or relative path for accessing the files. For me, it was better to be able to write in .scr file (with my usual editor) the absolute or relative path to the files I need in my projects, and to see compiler respecting what I wrote. Why did you change it from V6 to V7 ? Best regards. Joel Petrique > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: icc-mot-bounces@imagecraft.com [mailto:icc-mot- > bounces@imagecraft.com] De la part de Rob Milne > Envoy??: jeudi 31 juillet 2008 03:44 > ??: Discussion List for ICC08/11/12/16 users. You do NOT need to subscribe > toicc-announce if you are a member of this. > Objet?: Re: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog > > Hi Richard, > > I'll second that sentiment. Migrating to xgate is the logical > progression for my projects. > > -rob > > Jim Fiocca wrote: > > Richard, > > > > I spoke with my local Freescale rep about your comment > > " Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either". > > His reply was > > "Xgate is definitely sticking around. The S12X is the most popular > > automotive part we have." > > > > And regarding your comment > > "Freescale ... is effectively killing its third party vendors by giving > > away free compilers." > > The 32K limit for free CodeWarrior use makes it not very well suited for > > S12(X) users - one should probably use an S08 part if using that little > > memory. > > > > Please reconsider adding an XGate assembler to ICC12. > > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > > > Richard Man wrote: > >> At 07:24 AM 7/18/2008, Jim Fiocca wrote: > >>> Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on the > >>> blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. > >>> > >>> Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have the > >>> option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, full-featured > >>> IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose Imagecraft because it is > >>> cheaper and less complicated. I disagree with the whole premise of > >>> upgrading the IDE. I'd be happy if the product didn't have an IDE at > >>> all (I only use it from the command line, with a Makefile). > >> > >> Hi JIm, I am always looking for input. Your points are well taken, and > >> our core competence and core focus will always be the compiler > >> support. There is no worry in that regard. > >> > >> Hence the decision not to rewrite the IDE ourselves, that'd really > >> take resources away from our core competence. > >> > >>> I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, and > >>> adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. > >> > >> We attempted to add XGate asm support more than a year ago. It's a > >> difficult to understand piece of work, what with the convoluted HC12 > >> expanded addressing and the S12X addition etc. In the end, very few > >> people care. Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either. > >> > >> Business wise, the sad reality with Freescale is that Freescale's main > >> focus is on its automotive customers, and on the other hand, it is > >> effectively killing its third party vendors by giving away free > >> compilers. > >> > >> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, > >> please use richard at imagecraft.com) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Icc-mot mailing list > >> Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > >> http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Icc-mot mailing list > > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot > > _______________________________________________ > Icc-mot mailing list > Icc-mot@imagecraft.com > http://dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo/icc-mot From richard-lists at imagecraft.com Thu Jul 31 15:30:09 2008 From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) Date: Thu Jul 31 16:33:35 2008 Subject: XGATE, was: Re: [Icc-mot] ImageCraft Blog In-Reply-To: <489118F5.9040106@web.net> References: <200807180836.m6I8aULF040499@mail.imagecraft.com> <4880A7B3.8020409@fiocca.net> <200807182200.m6IM0dlD053616@mail.imagecraft.com> <4890DF1D.3030904@fiocca.net> <489118F5.9040106@web.net> Message-ID: <200807312333.m6VNXYHf020265@mail.imagecraft.com> Thank you for all of you folks' suggestions. The main issue with the XGate asm was that we did not have the right resource to support it so the implementation was flawed. I will revisit the issues and see how best we can proceed forward. At 06:44 PM 7/30/2008, Rob Milne wrote: >Hi Richard, > >I'll second that sentiment. Migrating to xgate is the logical >progression for my projects. > >-rob > >Jim Fiocca wrote: >> Richard, >>I spoke with my local Freescale rep about your comment >> " Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either". >>His reply was >>"Xgate is definitely sticking around. The S12X is the most popular >>automotive part we have." >>And regarding your comment >> "Freescale ... is effectively killing its third party vendors by >> giving away free compilers." >>The 32K limit for free CodeWarrior use makes it not very well >>suited for S12(X) users - one should probably use an S08 part if >>using that little memory. >>Please reconsider adding an XGate assembler to ICC12. >>Thanks, >> Jim >> >>Richard Man wrote: >>>At 07:24 AM 7/18/2008, Jim Fiocca wrote: >>>>Not sure if you were looking for feedback on what you wrote on >>>>the blog, but I guess I'll give it anyway. >>>> >>>>Speaking from a Freescale processor point of view, we all have >>>>the option to go to CodeWarrior if we want a big, bloated, >>>>full-featured IDE with integrated debugger. We (I) choose >>>>Imagecraft because it is cheaper and less complicated. I >>>>disagree with the whole premise of upgrading the IDE. I'd be >>>>happy if the product didn't have an IDE at all (I only use it >>>>from the command line, with a Makefile). >>> >>>Hi JIm, I am always looking for input. Your points are well taken, >>>and our core competence and core focus will always be the compiler >>>support. There is no worry in that regard. >>> >>>Hence the decision not to rewrite the IDE ourselves, that'd really >>>take resources away from our core competence. >>> >>>>I think you should direct your energy into the compiler itself, >>>>and adding support for such things as XGATE, for example. >>> >>>We attempted to add XGate asm support more than a year ago. It's a >>>difficult to understand piece of work, what with the convoluted >>>HC12 expanded addressing and the S12X addition etc. In the end, >>>very few people care. Now the latest S12X may not support XGate either. >>> >>>Business wise, the sad reality with Freescale is that Freescale's >>>main focus is on its automotive customers, and on the other hand, >>>it is effectively killing its third party vendors by giving away >>>free compilers. // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) From richard at imagecraft.com Thu Jul 31 15:33:30 2008 From: richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) Date: Thu Jul 31 16:36:56 2008 Subject: [Icc-mot] Done any interesting projects? Lets showcase it on the ImageCraft Blog Message-ID: <200807312336.m6VNatgY020340@mail.imagecraft.com> Through the years, I have seen some very interesting projects from our customers. We get pretty good number of hits to our new blog. If you have done some interesting projects and want to be "showcased," email me off-list. Thanks. // richard On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site. [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]