Re: Opinions about AVR32 for Voice Recorder?
- From: "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco_dot_Dijkstra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:55:04 GMT
"Chris H" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:v54BiHFGuffHFAZD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <8f45c81c-088d-444e-b759-245e2bd4da52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rickman <gnuarm@xxxxxxxxx> writes
not be easy to port application code between manufacturers. However,
there are other concerns about using a proprietary device such as the
ALL MCU are proprietary except the 8051 where there are multiple cores (over 40) some of which are FREE, and multiple
implementations over 600 from about 60+ chip vendors.. The ARM core is single source and definitely NOT free.
I wouldn't call ARM cores single source as they are produced by many
different fabs but there are also several architecture licensees who
produce their own implementations. The only thing that is single source
is the ARM architecture, and that's exactly how you want it (or you get the
mess the x86 "architecture" is in today).
Of course it's rare to see MCUs that have the exact same peripherals,
are pin compatible and run at exact the the same frequency, voltage and
power - this simply doesn't make sense commercially. I'm sure few 8051
implementations fit these criteria.
The main one is tools. Although Atmel may have supported tool
vendors to develop compilers and debuggers for this devices, the tool
vendors will sell a lot more of the ARM tool sets and it is very
unlikely that the AVR32 tools will work as well as the ARM tools.
I think you will find that the IAR compiler will be at a similar standard for both ARM and AVR32.
Ie. code quality similar to GCC...
The Gcc is a movable feast and depending who's implementation (and library) you get is not going to be constant on
any architecture let alone across architectures. However I would think that it is going to be as good on AVR as ARM.
GCC is far behind the state of the art on many architectures.