ARM Development on Mac OS X?

[naragon1]

I've been doing some AVR development for ATMega168, 328, and ATTiny2313 and ATTiny85 and so far I've been able to create a decent/cheap tool chain for OSX using avrdude and an USBTiny programmer. I'm interested in playing around with ARM MCUs, but it seems like all the IDEs only seem to support Windows. Can anyone recommend a decent IDE for ARM development (commercial or otherwise ) for OS other than Windows?

EDIT: I guess I should clarify -  a quick Google search yields a number of  potential options, e.g CrossWorks for ARM. I guess I'm looking for a specific recommendation that someone has had first hand experience with.

[zapta]

Search for Arm Pro Mini. Works flawlessly on Mac OSX using LPCXpresso.

[andersm]

I'm using Eclipse with the GCC ARM Embedded compiler, GNU ARM Eclipse plugin and OpenOCD for JTAG. All the software is free, and as a bonus works on Windows and Linux as well.

[janekm]

Simplicity Studio from Silicon Labs is a very easy-to-get-going IDE (based on Eclipse) for their range of ARM micros, that's the one-download option I would recommend (if you don't need chip flexibility).

For toolchain you want https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded which is the version of GCC maintained by ARM.

http://gnuarmeclipse.github.io offers plugins and instructions for putting together an Eclipse-based IDE for basically any ARM Cortex based MCU. For programmers, the Blackmagic probe ( https://github.com/blacksphere/blackmagic ) is nice as it doesn't need any other host software than GDB, so less to install / maintain. But depending on which chip you want to program you may need to compile the latest version from github. I used an ST-Link clone (as can be found on eBay) reprogrammed as Blackmagic probe, it's great as it comes in a robust, tiny dongle.

You can also use ST-Link clones directly with openocd or texane.

There are now also starting to be options for using the Arduino IDE (and Arduino compatible libraries) for some ARM-based chips, for example: http://www.stm32duino.com

Overall the situation is much, much better than it was even a few months ago Though things are still a bit new so it can be a bit of a time-sink to keep on top of all the changes / improvements going on.

[kripton2035]

a virtual machine like vmware fusion is a good option when developping hardware on mac os x ...
don't use Parallels as it has difficulties with usb devices that are not standard (ex: programmers, etc...) you must unplug and replug everytime.

[matseng]

don't use Parallels as it has difficulties with usb devices that are not standard (ex: programmers, etc...) you must unplug and replug everytime.

Not so sure about that.  I do a lot of development for Verfone terminals and the firmware upload tools are using proprietary Verifone win-only USB drivers - it works like charm under Parallels.  I really never had any major problems with the usb-passthrough in Parallels except for a rather heavy cpu load when running the Digilent Analog Discovery  at too high sample rates. 

[dr_dan]

don't use Parallels as it has difficulties with usb devices that are not standard (ex: programmers, etc...) you must unplug and replug everytime.

Not so sure about that.  I do a lot of development for Verfone terminals and the firmware upload tools are using proprietary Verifone win-only USB drivers - it works like charm under Parallels.  I really never had any major problems with the usb-passthrough in Parallels except for a rather heavy cpu load when running the Digilent Analog Discovery  at too high sample rates. 

Seconded - I've used a a Tech-Tools digiview logic analyser, Xeltek multi-device programmer, and Atmel JTAGICE3 programmer with no issues at all under Parallels.

[matseng]

Seconded - I've used a a Tech-Tools digiview logic analyser, Xeltek multi-device programmer, and Atmel JTAGICE3 programmer with no issues at all under Parallels.

Sorry for being a bit OT heer, but are you running El Capitan and did you upgrade to to Parallels11?  Not sure if the $49 for the 10->11 upgrade is enough value for the money...

[naragon1]

Search for Arm Pro Mini. Works flawlessly on Mac OSX using LPCXpresso.

Wow, I wasn't aware of this. It looks amazing, now I finally have an excuse for a toaster oven.

[naragon1]

Thanks for all the replies. I think I have enough here to keep me busy for a few days.  I used to have Windows running on VMWare Fusion setup a while back, but when I upgraded to Yosemite the older version of Fusion I had stopped working. I don't want to have to pay for either Fusion or Parallels at this point.

[kripton2035]

don't use Parallels as it has difficulties with usb devices that are not standard (ex: programmers, etc...) you must unplug and replug everytime.

Not so sure about that.  I do a lot of development for Verfone terminals and the firmware upload tools are using proprietary Verifone win-only USB drivers - it works like charm under Parallels.  I really never had any major problems with the usb-passthrough in Parallels except for a rather heavy cpu load when running the Digilent Analog Discovery  at too high sample rates. 

Seconded - I've used a a Tech-Tools digiview logic analyser, Xeltek multi-device programmer, and Atmel JTAGICE3 programmer with no issues at all under Parallels.

nice to hear these works under parallels, but I wasnt able to make mikroprog to work under parallels, and it went flowlessly under vwmare...
same for a customer medical special peripheral (to scan foot pressure with usb connexion)
I was able to use cypress programmers under parallels but it hanged sometimes. no hang at all since I am with vmware.

[westfw]

(I'm really not fond of paying more for my VM/Windows SW than I would for a pretty decent used PC.   Sigh.)
(And I've been pretty unhappy with W8/W10 performance under Virtual Box.  Is it better with the commercial packages?)

[dr_dan]

Seconded - I've used a a Tech-Tools digiview logic analyser, Xeltek multi-device programmer, and Atmel JTAGICE3 programmer with no issues at all under Parallels.

Sorry for being a bit OT heer, but are you running El Capitan and did you upgrade to to Parallels11?  Not sure if the $49 for the 10->11 upgrade is enough value for the money...

I'm not running the latest versions - it all works so I see no need to pay money for no additional functionality. OS X 10.6.8, Parallels Desktop 8. 

[dannyf]

ARM Development on Mac OS X?

It is not common to run into developers on Mac: most of the ones that I ran into run their development environment inside a copy of windows on the Mac.

If I were you, I would try to figure out a) if there is a particular reason you want to develop on Mac; and b) if your priority is to develop ARM or to develop it on Mac. There are reasons why most of those tools are windows based.

[free_electron]

make your life easy : get a pc... you can find a good used pc on ebay for 200$... Get a used dell optiplex 790 or 990 with an i5 and win7 in minitower.  rock solid machines.

you may not like my answer , but the fact is that NOBODY, develops such tools for MacOs. It used to be that hardare development was done on Sun workstations. those went the way of the dodo due to the machine being too expensive. Pc's are a dime a dozen. Mac's are too expensive.

[nctnico]

For those recommending Windows: perhaps it didn't occur to you or you never noticed but compiling software on Windows is extremely slow.

[zapta]

... the fact is that NOBODY, develops such tools for MacOs.

Demonstratively false.

[Bassman59]

... the fact is that NOBODY, develops such tools for MacOs.

Demonstratively false.

Agreed.

[Bassman59]

a virtual machine like vmware fusion is a good option when developping hardware on mac os x ...
don't use Parallels as it has difficulties with usb devices that are not standard (ex: programmers, etc...) you must unplug and replug everytime.

I gave up on Parallels a few years ago when I noticed that it was dogshit slow trying to access the Mac hard disk which was mounted in the virtual Windows (XP at the time) as a network drive. It was unusable. I switched to VMWare and have not looked back. Recommended if you need to run Windows programs on a Mac. And I do: Xilinx tools, Altera tools, ModelSim, Altium, Keil uVision. VMWare has no problem with the various programming dongles.

[westfw]

compiling software on Windows is extremely slow.

Really?  I hadn't noticed that.   Do you have a particular example that can be tested?  ("download this compiler, this sample program, and run this command.")
Now, it seems that the usual compile process with its myriad tmp files and helper-programs interacts REALLY BADLY with some anti-virus software, but I'm not sure that you can blame windows for that.

NOBODY, develops such tools for MacOs.

Meh.   If you do a linux version (which is increasingly desirable), you can get a Mac version nearly for free.  (EAGLE took this route.   Their first Mac version ran under X11 and was more unix-like than Mac-like, and that was ... fine.  (well, it was "ok.")

[nctnico]

compiling software on Windows is extremely slow.

Really?  I hadn't noticed that.   Do you have a particular example that can be tested?  ("download this compiler, this sample program, and run this command.")
Now, it seems that the usual compile process with its myriad tmp files and helper-programs interacts REALLY BADLY with some anti-virus software, but I'm not sure that you can blame windows for that.

I already did that test several times and WIndows is always several times slower on the same system. Besides anti-virus software (which is necessary so do blame Windows) the task switching, disk caching and memory management used in Windows are not as good as the typical Unix system and it shows if you are going to start/stop many processes and open/close many files. On really large compilation runs task switching alone can eat up a significant amount of time (the difference between running for 30 minutes or 50 minutes).

[andersm]

GCC-based toolchains will also have the added overhead of the Unix emulation layer (MinGW/Cygwin).

[cncjerry]

Eclipse with GCC on OSX. I use a large screen iMac.  Best UI.

[gmb42]

compiling software on Windows is extremely slow.

Really?  I hadn't noticed that.   Do you have a particular example that can be tested?  ("download this compiler, this sample program, and run this command.")
Now, it seems that the usual compile process with its myriad tmp files and helper-programs interacts REALLY BADLY with some anti-virus software, but I'm not sure that you can blame windows for that.

I already did that test several times and WIndows is always several times slower on the same system. Besides anti-virus software (which is necessary so do blame Windows) the task switching, disk caching and memory management used in Windows are not as good as the typical Unix system and it shows if you are going to start/stop many processes and open/close many files. On really large compilation runs task switching alone can eat up a significant amount of time (the difference between running for 30 minutes or 50 minutes).

Totally off-topic, but I couldn't resist.

Anecdotes aren't data. 

Unless you dual-boot a machine it's somewhat hard to compare apples and apples.  The simplest demonstration I can come up with to show comparable compilation times for a "large" project is the Wireshark Petri-Dish buildbot that provides cross-platform test compiles of changes before they are merged into master (so expect breakages).

There are two build slaves, one Ubuntu using GCC, the other Windows using Visual Studio 2013, both are Amazon EC2 spot instances (so available CPU cycles can vary a bit) and both compile the Wireshark codebase in roughly the same time, approx. 14 mins.

The build slaves have slightly different build sequences, but the first Ubuntu compile step is roughly equivalent to the Windows "compiled with MSBuild" step.

So in this sample of 1, there's not much in it.  Other examples would be interesting.

[nctnico]

GCC-based toolchains will also have the added overhead of the Unix emulation layer (MinGW/Cygwin).

Not really. Under the hood Windows offers a C API (POSIX) which is pretty much the same as you'll find on Unix machine. If you don't need a GUI it is very easy to write portable code which compiles for both Windows and Unix based systems. See: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/10224.posix-and-unix-support-in-windows.aspx