Message-ID:	<3868D10E.B2AE88BF@iclinks.com>
From:	Steve Drake <sdrake AT iclinks DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: djgpp appropriate for embedded system?
References:	<385ACA26 DOT D9C9FC40 AT iclinks DOT com> <83s40j$pro$1 AT newsreader2 DOT core DOT theplanet DOT net>
Lines:	47
Date:	Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:02:38 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host:	209.162.65.252
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT verio DOT net
X-Trace:	nuq-read.news.verio.net 946393360 209.162.65.252 (Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:02:40 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:02:40 GMT
Organization:	Verio
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Well, in this case it is an existing system that has been around for several years. We have been using Borland C++ and a debugger from Paradigm. The availability of these tools is getting questionable, however, and we are looking for other options. DJGPP appeals because we need a long term solution that is cheap/free and can't be pulled away from us in the future because a vendor decides to stop supporting it.

We are providing somewhat general purpose hardware and development tools to our customers, and they write the final applications. Choosing the O/S - based approach has complicated things, but has provided some flexibilty too (having a command-line and file system is nice).

For the next generation of our product, we are thinking about using Linux (on a faster processor with more RAM and Flash). It would be nice to get away from the limitations of DOS. Linux seems to fit our requirements:

	low cost or free (O/S and tools)
	multitasking
	long term availability
	TCP/IP support

Windows CE might work too, but I kinda hate to be at the mercy of Microsoft.

Steve Drake

Steve Fairhead wrote:
> 
> "Steve Drake" <sdrake AT iclinks DOT com> wrote in message
> news:385ACA26 DOT D9C9FC40 AT iclinks DOT com...
> > I am considering using djgpp to develop apps for a small commercial
> embedded system:
> >
> > 386EX 33MHz
> > 2, 4 or 8 Meg flash, looks like a disk drive
> > 512K or 1Meg RAM
> > ROM-DOS 6.22 (DOS 6.22 compatible)
> > minimum of 2 serial ports (up to 7)
> 
> From direct experience I'd suggest your application might be far simpler and
> far more controllable going fully embedded, e.g. with an H8 cpu and just a C
> compiler. What is the OS doing for you that you can't do yourself, other
> than making things as complicated as a desktop system, which it's not?
> 
> I spent almost a year trying to get an embedded DOS system to be reliable
> (lots of development tool hassles, serial port hardware & library bugs,
> over-complex hardware and software). I then spent 10 days getting it running
> perfectly on an H8 eval board, simply and cleanly. (The customer had
> insisted on the previous approach because it was considered "easier" <g>.)
> Oh, and it'll be cheaper and more future-proof too. The PC absolutely sucks
> for embedded work.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --
> Steve Fairhead
> http://www.sfdesign.co.uk
> (remove the bla from the bogus reply-to)

- Raw text -