Author Topic: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development  (Read 19309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pack34

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 667
Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« on: May 07, 2016, 02:56:51 pm »
I've been using CooCox at work for STM32 development. I'm about to reboot a project from scratch and figure that this could be a good chance for a clean break.

It's a moderately sized project that has a lot of issues, such as the USB dropping out. The code works but just has odd events that occur and break the firmware. I'm planning to reboot from scratch and start over. Then just copy in all of the code that doesn't have low level hooks into the processor and see where that takes me.

I bring up switching from CooCox because although the IDE seems to function fine, I'm uncertain of the future of the IDE and would prefer to look into something else and I'm willing to pay for it.

I know that IAR is standard for this kind of stuff but it's just going to be out of my price range. I can definitely make the case to purchasing for anything ~$500 to $800 but a 5k purchase will be out of the question.

I also know that Keil is popular, but I've used that with Cypress development and it just feels like a pain to use.

Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?

 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2016, 03:10:54 pm »
I quite like Keil. Found IAR to be like stepping into a time machine.

It all depends on how you work, but I honestly never saw any appeal in the coocox-like options. Too small to trust IMO, too big where it's easy to hide and miss bugs. I don't know.

I moved from MPLAB to Keil and it was one of the best moves I could have made!
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2016, 03:47:12 pm »
Quote
I'm uncertain of the future of the IDE

I think it is dead. Very sad as I'm the biggest fan of theirs.

As an alternative, you can try emblocks/embitz: i have been its user since its beta days (but only for pic24) and have been very happy.

Quote
Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?

I continue to use coide because they support the chips that I play around with.

I have also Keil (4.x) and IAR. vs. CoIDE, they offer better debug support and a more utilitarian editor. Not as user friendly, and can be difficult to set up for a new project - less of a problem in actuality.

I see myself continuing to use CoIDE in the foreseeable future. At least until RTE is sufficiently improved / supported.

Another option that you may try, if you are migrating down from the higher end, is DS-5.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2016, 05:33:20 pm »
Within that price range, you are either looking at a "freebie" like Embitz, roll your own with Eclipse/GCC, or one of ours
https://imagecraft.com/products/jumpstart-c-tools-menu/jumpstart-c-features The majopr disadvantage of our tools is that it is (currently) Windows only. The plus is that the CodeBlocks IDE loads much faster than Eclipse, and our compiler is much faster than GCC, and we have our own debugger. On top of that, we have JumpStart API which gets people started on the STM32F much faster (which may not matter as much as you probably all the low level bits figured out).

The demo is fully functional for 45 days, and you can contact us if you have any questions.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline Pack34

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 667
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2016, 06:30:06 pm »
I'm just not interested in rolling my own. I'd rather have a decent quality tool I have to pay for and someone else manages.

I just don't want to be caught with my pnts down nd productivity halts.
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2016, 07:28:24 pm »
I'm just not interested in rolling my own. I'd rather have a decent quality tool I have to pay for and someone else manages.

I just don't want to be caught with my pnts down nd productivity halts.

Honestly, I was in the same position and Keil v5 (v6 next couple months) was my choice because it's directly from ARM. I take issue with certain aspects, but at the end of the day, there was just too much support to walk away from Keil or IAR.
 

Offline Pack34

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 667
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2016, 07:29:42 pm »
I see that IAR has a plugin for eclipse. Dies anyone have experience with this? If the actual iar interface is dated then this could.be an easy transition for me with coocox since it's also elclipse based.
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2016, 07:36:29 pm »
Here is a list of tools I have used:
Keil uV5: top tier tool, free for STM32L0 and F0 devices. Free for other devices if final binary is small than 32k. Officially supported by ST.
ImageCraft: better code density than gcc, with easy to use debugger, low cost, $250. My choice for fast prototyping on F0 and F4.
gcc: my golden standard and first choice tool, absolutely C standard compatible, with almost no bugs, but libc is not as efficient as commercial ones.

Tools I know, but have not used:
IAR: no idea about it. Officially supported by ST.
Atollic: free commercial grade tool with no compiler limitations, paid pro version supports advanced debugging. Officially supported by ST.

PS. I'm not a fan of debugger -- I can use serial printf or even a blinking LED plus an o'scope to diagnose 99% of the bugs and do performance and power profiling.
Therefore, even the crudest gcc and serial downloader satisfies my needs.
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Country: ch
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2016, 09:07:25 pm »
Generic text editor, cmake/make/gcc/dfu-util, a serial port for debug and you're done. That's how we do it on the projects I work on.

From my experience on the type of devices I work on (extensive use of on-chip and off-chip peripherals) debugging tools are mostly useless as they break the real-time nature of the application, and most issues are critically linked to events that happen outside of the CPU itself. I'll rather send debug traces over serial or dump them to the device's SD card for low speed stuff (and use LEDs for very slow things!) and toggle pins I can look at on a scope or logic analyzer for high speed stuff.

We do use CoOS as it's makes for a pretty nice lightweight scheduler but never used their other tools.

I found debugging tools useful for the little bit of dabbling I've done on PC programming, but for embedded real-time stuff no way.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 09:11:49 pm by Kilrah »
 

Offline daybyter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: de
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2016, 09:27:45 pm »
I just used the arduino IDE.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2016, 11:35:41 pm »
Quote
I'm not a fan of debugger -- I can use serial printf or even a blinking LED plus an o'scope to diagnose 99% of the bugs

Actually, you don't have to use printf / blinking led / oscope to diagnose 100% of the bugs: think about how people wrote code back in the dark ages.

The use of any debugging tools, being it printf, led or oscope or a hardware debugger, is not a question of "must" but a question of efficiency. It is much easier to inspect the hardware with a debugger than a printf or a blinking led. Sure, there are other ways for you to do that but not as efficiently.

The same is with an IDE, or even a compiler / assembler: it is entirely possible to write in binary. But the use of tools like an assembler, a compiler, an ide and a hardware debugger makes your life easier.

================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2016, 11:36:55 pm »
Quote
it is entirely possible to write in binary.

I still remember my days of developing DOS .com executables entirely through debug.com.

:)'
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2016, 11:38:58 pm »
I still remember my days of developing DOS .com executables entirely through debug.com.

Yes, I did this back in ~03, writing a program to bypass HDD restoration card.
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1606
  • Country: dk
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2016, 12:56:34 am »
I've been using CooCox at work for STM32 development. I'm about to reboot a project from scratch and figure that this could be a good chance for a clean break.

It's a moderately sized project that has a lot of issues, such as the USB dropping out. The code works but just has odd events that occur and break the firmware. I'm planning to reboot from scratch and start over. Then just copy in all of the code that doesn't have low level hooks into the processor and see where that takes me.

I bring up switching from CooCox because although the IDE seems to function fine, I'm uncertain of the future of the IDE and would prefer to look into something else and I'm willing to pay for it.

I know that IAR is standard for this kind of stuff but it's just going to be out of my price range. I can definitely make the case to purchasing for anything ~$500 to $800 but a 5k purchase will be out of the question.

I also know that Keil is popular, but I've used that with Cypress development and it just feels like a pain to use.

Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?

http://www.openstm32.org/System+Workbench+for+STM32

it is STs own eclipse/gcc


 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2016, 01:21:53 am »
Quote
I did this back in ~03,

then you would appreciate the beauty of coding in binary, :). no compiler, no ide, no text editor, no linker, .... Nothing between you and your machine, :)

When ever people attempt to show their manhood by insisting on coding in assembly, I always have the urge to tell them that no real men code in ASCII, :)
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2016, 01:23:21 am »
If you are making a living off your tools, do yourself a favor and get a commercial one. You don't want to end up in a situation where you have to doubt your tools.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2016, 01:40:20 am »
then you would appreciate the beauty of coding in binary, :). no compiler, no ide, no text editor, no linker, .... Nothing between you and your machine, :)

When ever people attempt to show their manhood by insisting on coding in assembly, I always have the urge to tell them that no real men code in ASCII, :)

Having too much time to spend. I was 11 at that time -- school education. In China every class is 45 minutes long, including computer classes. I have to find something to do during the 45 minutes, and I do not want to play with the stupid Macromedia (not even Adobe) Flash and Authoware.

Backing to topic, I do not think debugging with serial or GPIO is slow. A "proper" debugger, such as the MSP430FET with IAR, freezes 50% of the time I try to download the program.
No, I'm not willing to spend $$$$ on a commercial debugger such as a J-Link, I only use the free chip manufacturer's on board debugger.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2016, 01:49:08 am »
Quote
I do not think debugging with serial or GPIO is slow.

So you suspect that register A doesn't have the right value. So you write a piece of code to print it on the serial window.

While the code is running, you suddenly realize that maybe the real problem is register B. What do you do then? You stop it and add a line to print register A.

With a debugger, you simply walk over to that register and read its value.

Cases like that are plenty.

Now, that's not to say that serial prints have no value - it allows (near) real time reporting which a hardware debugger doesn't do, until recently: swo, RTT and j-scope and the latest st-link v2-1 with integrated virtual comm ports for example are examples where debuggers are integrating some form of real-time reporting capabilities.

================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2016, 02:05:00 am »
Not sure why we are talking about debugger, but one of the best things is to examine the IO registers. Let's say your I2C EEPROM access just don't work right. You HAVE set up the registers, but what if *something* set them to the wrong things? You never know. Well, you can of course use printf to print them out, but once you know they are indeed correct, you must then remove the printfs so they are useless (I use printf myself to leave bread crumbs). A debugger that lets you look at the IO registers come in handy in that situation. Just check the registers once, and if they are correct, then you can just forget about them and go on to other potential culprits.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2016, 02:11:16 am »
With a debugger, you simply walk over to that register and read its value.

Just a matter of what one is used to do. I've been programming since 8, and I'm now 13 days to my 24th birthday. I think I can solve most problems without a debugger.
I do not use a debugger even when programming for PC. I only use gdb when my program encounters some really serious problems, such as a sigsegv/sigabrt/sigpipe.
Being said, I'm not a professional programmer. I do EE side of things more than CS or CE sides, but I have some projects that are longer than 10k LOC, one being my senior design, which is an integrated robotic car system with CV algorithm in plain C (>10k LOC including CV, server, MCU and Android app), the other one being a multiphysics simulator for my current research since I can not afford COMSOL (input parser, librarian, meshing engine, platform manager, solvers, user program compiler, simulation engine linker and plotter, in C and C++).

Edit: typo.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 02:14:57 am by blueskull »
 

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2016, 02:14:03 am »
swo, RTT and j-scope and the latest st-link v2-1 with integrated virtual comm ports for example are examples where debuggers are integrating some form of real-time reporting capabilities.

It's more like a work flow thing. I like printf, and I do not care if it is provided by UART or JTAG. In fact, CCES+ICE1000 support printf through JTAG, and I'm happy to use it.
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2016, 02:23:28 am »
Pack34

Have you looked at this :

https://imagecraft.com/

From what I think (their site is a little confusing) the compiler, IDE, and debugger is $400 (commercial version), which is in your price range.  Richard correct me if I am wrong.

They have a development board that comes with a non-commercial compiler license for $100 and $50 for the debugger (forum discount, not documented).  This seems a safe way for a professional to check them out.

They have been around since the 90's and one of them is a member on this forum. And as far as I can tell the only one.  Seems this would be a plus for forum members.

(FYI - I have no connection with them)
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 04:33:37 am by ez24 »
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline Pack34

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 667
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2016, 02:42:04 am »
If you are making a living off your tools, do yourself a favor and get a commercial one. You don't want to end up in a situation where you have to doubt your tools.

That's precisely why I started this thread. I'd prefer to look at paid tools. I can most likely get anything under a grand approved easy. But anything over that I'll have to convince someone higher up to approve it. Since CooCox still does work on our machines I find it unlikely that I'll get approval.
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2016, 03:51:10 am »

https://imagecraft.com/

From what I think (their site is a little confusing) the compiler, IDE, and debugger is $500 (commercial version), which is in your price range.  Richard correct me if I am wrong.

Hmm... that's bad that if our site is confusing. Can you (or anyone else) send me a PM or email me richard@imagecraft.com with critiques in this area? I will have the web team look into it.

The commercial version of the compiler/IDE starts at $249, and if you want a debugger license, that's $150. So $400-.

For newbies transitioning from AVR/Arduino, the JumpSTart MicroBox is a great way to learn, as mentioned.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2016, 04:42:56 am »

Hmm... that's bad that if our site is confusing. Can you (or anyone else) send me a PM or email me richard@imagecraft.com with critiques in this area? I will have the web team look into it.
I will but it will take awhile.  Just minor confusing points (for me at least).  And I only look at the dev board and what comes with it.

One question - is the $50 non-commercial debugger price (with the dev board) for anyone or just EEVBlog members?  This is one of the issues (again with the dev board).

thanks

YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2016, 08:25:11 am »
Very simple: $50 NC compiler, $50 NC debugger. These are for everyone (price dropped on the compiler license).

$100 MicroBox includes the NC compiler license, 2 pieces of hardware, and a c ebook. So the -NC debugger is extra $50 on top of that.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Country: ch
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2016, 08:42:11 am »
Not sure why we are talking about debugger, but one of the best things is to examine the IO registers. Let's say your I2C EEPROM access just don't work right. You HAVE set up the registers, but what if *something* set them to the wrong things?
I hook up a logic analyzer to the I2C lines and check what's actually going on the bus, that way no doubt regardless of where the fault is.
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2016, 08:49:30 am »
I hook up a logic analyzer to the I2C lines and check what's actually going on the bus, that way no doubt regardless of where the fault is.

I do that too. That just tells you what's wrong with the I2C signals. Not where the fault is. Have you looked at generating I2C as master or slave using for example, the STM32F4 subsystems? Yes, I know some people prefer to bit-bang their own, but there are a lot of advantages to use the built-in peripherals, and a logic analyzer does not tell you everything needed.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Country: ch
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2016, 08:53:50 am »
Have you looked at generating I2C as master or slave using for example, the STM32F4 subsystems?
I actually do that :)

For me once I saw what happened (or didn't) on the bus it has always been quick enough to figure out the reason not to warrant bothering to go fetch the debug probe.

 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9318
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2016, 09:33:54 am »
i'm not a fan of electric drill, i can solve it with just the mechanical hand drill, or with just level 8th nail punch karate kongfu with my fingertip, to prove that i am a man enough, the same goes with the debugger. not! i'll use what ever necessary at hand in this modern day. hand drill is good, but if i can have electric drill as well, its better, they are many kind of holes today that each is easiest to do with a particular tool. a built in debugger is a proof that a software is.. software enough... imho. meaning that not that i dont use printer, pencil and paper, and hole punch as my debuggers. i'm learning Keil, based on dannyf blog, and if that is not software enough, i'll try CoIDE, based on dannyf blog as well... there are many more saved in my storage ready to be learnt, only if i have 48 hours a day and i can split my self into two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_Cortex-M_development_tools
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 09:37:43 am by Mechatrommer »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2016, 09:34:50 am »
Well, that's why there are different tools for different people.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline Pack34

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 667
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2016, 03:29:29 pm »
I've been using CooCox at work for STM32 development. I'm about to reboot a project from scratch and figure that this could be a good chance for a clean break.

It's a moderately sized project that has a lot of issues, such as the USB dropping out. The code works but just has odd events that occur and break the firmware. I'm planning to reboot from scratch and start over. Then just copy in all of the code that doesn't have low level hooks into the processor and see where that takes me.

I bring up switching from CooCox because although the IDE seems to function fine, I'm uncertain of the future of the IDE and would prefer to look into something else and I'm willing to pay for it.

I know that IAR is standard for this kind of stuff but it's just going to be out of my price range. I can definitely make the case to purchasing for anything ~$500 to $800 but a 5k purchase will be out of the question.

I also know that Keil is popular, but I've used that with Cypress development and it just feels like a pain to use.

Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?

http://www.openstm32.org/System+Workbench+for+STM32

it is STs own eclipse/gcc

Thanks! Being eclipse, hopefully it'll be a lateral shift. I'll add this one to my list.
 

Online newbrain

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 782
  • Country: se
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2016, 08:08:42 pm »
You've been given a lot of good advice, I will add my two cents:
Give VisualGDB a try if you happen to like or be used to Visual Studio.

The price is moderate (especially for the embedded version only), and the Visualgdb integrates VS with gdb and openocd in an almost seamless way.
Debugging works well (as far as I tried) as do watches and live variables.
Many ARM and non-ARM architectures supported, for STM32 HAL/STP, USB library, FreeRTOS, LwIP are supported directly.

Visual Studio Community is free (as in beer) and has very few limitations (at least for my use).
Nandemo wa shiranai wa yo, shitteru koto dake.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline SimonR

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Country: gb
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2016, 09:09:12 pm »
Quote
I do not think debugging with serial or GPIO is slow.

So you suspect that register A doesn't have the right value. So you write a piece of code to print it on the serial window.

While the code is running, you suddenly realize that maybe the real problem is register B. What do you do then? You stop it and add a line to print register A.

With a debugger, you simply walk over to that register and read its value.

Cases like that are plenty.

Now, that's not to say that serial prints have no value - it allows (near) real time reporting which a hardware debugger doesn't do, until recently: swo, RTT and j-scope and the latest st-link v2-1 with integrated virtual comm ports for example are examples where debuggers are integrating some form of real-time reporting capabilities.

I agree there is no substitute for a good debugger for looking at registers or even the state of your code.  But even then you have to be careful. A trap for young players I think is the term.
Just because you can read a register doesn't mean the value is the same as when the fault occured.

Example 1 Interrupt control registers.
Sometimnes reading them clears the flags so make sure what you are looking at is the first read and not the second.
printf or similar is good to avoid this one.

Example 2 Registers that do different things on reading to what they do on writes.
I currently have to use a register that returns chip status on read  but sets up internal  timing on a write.

As a result even though I own an electric drill in the form of a high end JTAG debugger I still use all of the hand drill tools,
including printf, stuffing individual bytes straight out of a UART, waggling IO pins, and even an on board software trace in the form a a quick and dirty array and index mechanism.

Basically what ever fits the problem at hand.
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2560
  • Country: it
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2016, 09:21:46 pm »
I've been using CooCox at work for STM32 development. I'm about to reboot a project from scratch and figure that this could be a good chance for a clean break.

It's a moderately sized project that has a lot of issues, such as the USB dropping out. The code works but just has odd events that occur and break the firmware. I'm planning to reboot from scratch and start over. Then just copy in all of the code that doesn't have low level hooks into the processor and see where that takes me.

I bring up switching from CooCox because although the IDE seems to function fine, I'm uncertain of the future of the IDE and would prefer to look into something else and I'm willing to pay for it.

I know that IAR is standard for this kind of stuff but it's just going to be out of my price range. I can definitely make the case to purchasing for anything ~$500 to $800 but a 5k purchase will be out of the question.

I also know that Keil is popular, but I've used that with Cypress development and it just feels like a pain to use.

Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?

http://www.openstm32.org/System+Workbench+for+STM32

it is STs own eclipse/gcc

Thanks! Being eclipse, hopefully it'll be a lateral shift. I'll add this one to my list.

One thing i miss about CooCox is the list of all peripherals and registers with description within the IDE... STM32 datasheets SUCKS! But eclipse with the gnuarmeclipse plugin and the device packages is getting there..
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1705
  • Country: ca
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2016, 09:01:47 pm »
You've been given a lot of good advice, I will add my two cents:
Give VisualGDB a try if you happen to like or be used to Visual Studio.

The price is moderate (especially for the embedded version only), and the Visualgdb integrates VS with gdb and openocd in an almost seamless way.
Debugging works well (as far as I tried) as do watches and live variables.
Many ARM and non-ARM architectures supported, for STM32 HAL/STP, USB library, FreeRTOS, LwIP are supported directly.

Visual Studio Community is free (as in beer) and has very few limitations (at least for my use).

Looks good, but seeing this is a bit ridiculous (yes I realize they don't do GDB):


and here is what register window looks like, quite nice:


Single step not super fast ~1s with st-link, but completely usable, could try segger sometime to see if its any different.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2016, 09:40:29 pm »
Quote
here is what register window looks like, quite nice:

From good / old uVision 3, on a LM3S628. It is a lot more readable / usable to me.

================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1245
  • Country: fo
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2016, 09:53:41 pm »
Does anyone have any suggestions to look at?
EmBlocks/Bitz
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 940
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2016, 10:13:48 pm »
Another option is to roll your own using Eclipse/CDT/GDB/GCC and a few other components. Takes about an hour to get everything all set up, and you're not tied to any particular vendor--everything is open source.
 

Offline VEGETA

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • Country: jo
  • I am the cult of personality
    • Thundertronics
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2016, 05:22:57 am »
Another option is to roll your own using Eclipse/CDT/GDB/GCC and a few other components. Takes about an hour to get everything all set up, and you're not tied to any particular vendor--everything is open source.

so eclipse is an ide only, you need a compiler which is gcc. so installing gcc and eclipse is enough for all arm mcu development?
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2560
  • Country: it
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2016, 05:47:08 am »
Not really. you still lack the debugger and the header files so you don't have to map all the registers for each processor yourself

gnuarmeclipse is something you want to google. follow their installation guide.
Now that the "packs" feature is getting stable you have support to each vendor's header files, peripheral library, examples... AND register view in the debugger. Finally. Not long ago you only had support for stm32
 

Offline Lukas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 355
  • Country: de
    • carrotIndustries.net
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2016, 11:18:18 am »
I'm wondering why nobody mentioned Atollic TrueStudio yet. It's basically Eclipse+GNU toolchain shrink-wrapped. There's a free unlimited version. In case you want/have to spend money, there's a paid version as well.

Personally, I'm just fine with using Makefiles, gdb and a stock gcc. No need to learn a different IDE for every new MCU family.
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2016, 09:20:09 pm »
Rowley makes a really nice tool, doesn't get 1/2 the recognition it deserves.

That said.... All the talk about toolchain is a little off the mark when it comes to STM32 right now... The peripheral code is such a mess for the entire company it's really disappointing.  There's:

SPL - standard peripheral library, outdated for the newer chips, has bugs
HAL - bloated and universally hated (but does work OK)
LL - "low layer" which is supposed to be a version of SPL that is compatible with HAL... but largely does not exist
CodeSnippets - someone's work at chip specific direct register access wrapped quickly, but also doesn't really exist

And then the options of OpenLibCM3 that looks dead, writing your own non-portable register access which is dumb because of the number of times that work has been done by different people, and others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

STM's Achilles heel is their software without a doubt.
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2016, 04:40:33 am »
And then the options of OpenLibCM3 that looks dead, writing your own non-portable register access which is dumb because of the number of times that work has been done by different people, and others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

STM's Achilles heel is their software without a doubt.

Our JumpStart API works great. It exists for the F0xx and F4xx series, and I just starting to port to the F7xx series. I have a user that's not great with programming (he's a mechanical engineer) that has a working prototype with Arduino, and convinced him to give our JumpStart MicroBox with the -NC compiler a try, and he's now writing multiple interrupt detection code, on the STM32F401, all in less than a week, when he previously really have experience with just the Arduino environment.
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2016, 04:45:05 am »
Richard, then release Jumpstart for other tools and let's see how it stands. I understand your goal is to sell your IDE/Compiler, but for the rest of the world that wants to work in IAR, or Keil, or Gcc, it's a no-go.
 

Offline JPortici

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2560
  • Country: it
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2016, 07:02:19 am »
writing your own non-portable register access which is dumb because of the number of times that work has been done by different people
i just need registers name and description. i just need an include file eith the resisters mapped and with the same names used in the datasheet.
So the main include file in the SPL is enough
Then I need the chip's datasheet to have the memory mapping of the actual chip with maybe a summary of the bits (the 100 pages waste of space is only used is to look at the 3 pages of electrical characteristic)
It's not that hard. Microchip's been doing it since forever and it's just fine. when i don't know how to initialize a peripheral i look at the reference manual, when i just need the address or the names or the bits i look at the chip's manual
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2016, 07:13:35 am »
Richard, then release Jumpstart for other tools and let's see how it stands. I understand your goal is to sell your IDE/Compiler, but for the rest of the world that wants to work in IAR, or Keil, or Gcc, it's a no-go.

I need to pay my bills. I am sure IAR/Keil have a good solution for their $7000 tools... Oh wait..
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Online donotdespisethesnake

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 932
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2016, 08:11:56 am »
Richard, then release Jumpstart for other tools and let's see how it stands. I understand your goal is to sell your IDE/Compiler, but for the rest of the world that wants to work in IAR, or Keil, or Gcc, it's a no-go.

I need to pay my bills.

And therefore you need to keep spamming. It is getting very tedious.

Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2016, 08:15:45 am »
The poster asks a question, I answered. Why is it spamming? Plenty other people have said they have written better software than ST. The only difference is that they kept it to themselves. They don't offer it to everyone either. Are they spamming just because they mention that fact too?
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2016, 02:22:00 pm »

I need to pay my bills. I am sure IAR/Keil have a good solution for their $7000 tools... Oh wait..

Apples to apples.... Keil is $700.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5750
  • Country: nl
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2016, 02:47:23 pm »
Apples to apples.... Keil is $700.
Where can I sign?  :)
Unfortunately the prices are in the correct ballpark, this is a pricelist from 2012, already over $5,5k for basic version.  :scared:
For the STM32F0 there is now a free version payed by ST but not for the F1,2,3,4,7.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5750
  • Country: nl
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2016, 02:51:57 pm »
Ah found a recent one, as expected it got worse.
TS could use the cortex restricted version, still €3,4k without 21% VAT, including it would make > €4k :scared:
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 02:54:03 pm by Kjelt »
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2016, 05:00:53 pm »
They just launched the Plus and Cortex models. I thought it was $700 to get going, but that's apparently my renewal rate. Well, $700 is good for me at least ;)
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 940
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2016, 05:22:16 pm »

so eclipse is an ide only, you need a compiler which is gcc. so installing gcc and eclipse is enough for all arm mcu development?

You need the following pieces:
  • Eclipse
  • CDT -- The C/C++ development platform for Eclipse
  • GCC ARM embedded toolchain -- The GCC cross-complier, assembler, and linker for ARM
  • GNU ARM Eclipse plugins -- This package integrates the GCC cross compiler and associated tools needed to compile and link ARM code into Eclipse and provides configuration dialogs
  • GNU ARM Eclipse build tools -- This includes make, which is used by Eclipse to build projects

You also need software to connect your hardware debugger to Eclipse. I use a Segger J-Link, so I use the Segger Software and Documentation Pack for Windows.

Next, you'll need C header files for your MCU. You can generally get these from the MCU vendor. If you want to see the MCU's peripheral registers in Eclipse, you need EmbSysRegView, an Eclipse plug-in, and the ARM CMSIS-SVD file for your MCU, which you can download from the ARM website.

It only takes about an hour to download and install these components, perhaps a little longer the first time. I have a write-up that describes the process in detail. Send me a PM with your email address and I'm email you a copy if you'd like.

Quote from: Lukas
I'm wondering why nobody mentioned Atollic TrueStudio yet. It's basically Eclipse+GNU toolchain shrink-wrapped. There's a free unlimited version. In case you want/have to spend money, there's a paid version as well.

TrueStudio, when debugging code, is as slow as molasses in January. Downloading code to a board seems to take forever and single-stepping code is ridiculously lethargic. I used to think this was because Eclipse was slow, but after I built my own Eclipse development environment I found that Eclipse isn't slow, just TrueStudio.
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2016, 07:00:26 pm »
Ah found a recent one, as expected it got worse.
TS could use the cortex restricted version, still €3,4k without 21% VAT, including it would make > €4k :scared:

Just wait until they have no commercial competition :-DD
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2016, 07:16:11 pm »
" Just wait until they have no commercial competition :-DD"

Unless they want to kill themselves: arm is also leading the free gcc-arm effort, killing toolchain lenders on the low end, while killing the same low end vendors hope of moving to the high end with its keil offerings. That has gotten to get some people mad.

Not to mention iar.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline jnz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2016, 07:47:51 pm »
" Just wait until they have no commercial competition :-DD"

Unless they want to kill themselves: arm is also leading the free gcc-arm effort, killing toolchain lenders on the low end, while killing the same low end vendors hope of moving to the high end with its keil offerings. That has gotten to get some people mad.

Not to mention iar.

It wasn't a bad idea for ARM to buy Keil, the business plan you described does make a lot of sense.

Interesting to me that vendors like Rowley who I found to offer an excellent toolchain, get no love while everyone wants to duplicate effort on top of effort by rolling their own IDEs. Rowley was like $100-300. I mean, I'm not moving from Keil, but if I was, it wouldn't be to some dead project or some open source free-for-all, I just don't have the time for that.
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 940
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2016, 08:40:45 pm »
Interesting to me that vendors like Rowley who I found to offer an excellent toolchain, get no love while everyone wants to duplicate effort on top of effort by rolling their own IDEs. Rowley was like $100-300. I mean, I'm not moving from Keil, but if I was, it wouldn't be to some dead project or some open source free-for-all, I just don't have the time for that.

An open source free-for-all as you call it probably isn't a wise choice for someone doing commercial work. It's usually well worth the cost to go with Keil, IAR, or Rowley rather than use one of the free options with sketchy support.

For hobby use, one of the free options, including rolling your own from Eclipse/CDT/GDB, is more viable. Community support via forums is not so bad when you don't have a hard deadline approaching and your boss is breathing down your neck.
 

Offline richardman

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2016, 09:04:31 pm »

Interesting to me that vendors like Rowley who I found to offer an excellent toolchain, get no love while everyone wants to duplicate effort on top of effort by rolling their own IDEs. Rowley was like $100-300. I mean, I'm not moving from Keil, but if I was, it wouldn't be to some dead project or some open source free-for-all, I just don't have the time for that.

Note that the $100-$300 Rowley are the NON-COMMERCIAL use versions, their commercial version is still much less than IAR/Keil though. Still a bit higher than ours, but a good alternative to IAR/Keil also, IMHO.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 05:53:18 am by richardman »
// richard http://imagecraft.com/
JumpStart C++ for Cortex (compiler/IDE/debugger): the fastest easiest way to get productive on Cortex-M.
Smart.IO: phone App for embedded systems with no app or wireless coding
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 940
  • Country: us
    • Embedded Tales Blog
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2016, 04:40:17 pm »

Interesting to me that vendors like Rowley who I found to offer an excellent toolchain, get no love while everyone wants to duplicate effort on top of effort by rolling their own IDEs. Rowley was like $100-300. I mean, I'm not moving from Keil, but if I was, it wouldn't be to some dead project or some open source free-for-all, I just don't have the time for that.

Note that the $100-$300 Rowley are the NON-COMMERCIAL use versions, their commercial version is still much less than IAR/Keil though. Still a bit higher than ours, but a good alternative to IAR/Keil also, IMHO.


Even $5K for a Keil or IAR license is not a large number when you consider that the burdened cost of an engineer is often $200/hr or more. That $5K license only amounts to 25 hours of engineering time. If you save that much time over the lifetime of the license by taking advantage of product features and/or tech support, then the license is essentially free.

Many managers are penny wise and pound foolish. They fail to see that spending money on superior tools, even if they're expensive, pays off in the end in increased productivity that more than makes up for the cost of the tool.
 
The following users thanked this post: jnz

Offline Quarlo Klobrigney

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 551
  • Country: pt
  • Behind every alfoil hat is a genius
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2016, 08:31:08 pm »
As they say in a former neighborhood I used to live in "CooCox be dead" :--

So, I am trying to code the STM32F7 in C (I'm an assembly man) and the best thing I found so far to integrate it all together is this:
How to prepare IDE for STM32 in eclipse?
 
He speaks a little softly, but just follow the bouncing ball. :-+

For those who copy and paste, in the External Tools Configuration section, the text is as follows:
-f scripts/interface/stlink-v2.cfg
-f scripts/target/stm32fxx_stlink.cfg
-c "init; reset halt"
-c "flash write_image erase project_name.elf"
-c "reset run; shutdown"

And for those who also like STM32, another thing is to read Carmine Noviello's book Mastering STM32: https://leanpub.com/mastering-stm32 where he clearly explains how to install a standalone Eclipse.

I recommend Eclipse Mars. :-+

Eclipse tutorials for different chipsets are out there. Just look.
There's one on TI that's good as well.

The best part is that this is all free.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2016, 08:58:07 pm by Quarlo Klobrigney »
Voltage does not flow, nor does it go.
 

Offline jmsigler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Country: us
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2016, 10:20:10 pm »
It may have been linked in this thread already, but I used this website http://gnuarmeclipse.github.io/install/ which is maintained by the guy who leads the plugin development. It walks you step by step through the process and was easy enough to follow.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #62 on: June 04, 2016, 10:24:48 pm »
Quote
The best part is that this is all free.

not sure. I have found that the most expensive  things I have bought in tend to be free.

Instead, the best part of anything, particularly a tool that I need to make a living off of, is that it works.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2016, 11:57:40 pm »
And for those who also like STM32, another thing is to read Carmine Noviello's book Mastering STM32: https://leanpub.com/mastering-stm32 where he clearly explains how to install a standalone Eclipse.

How does it work buying a 60% book?  Looks interesting and I like the web site.  thanks
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline Quarlo Klobrigney

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 551
  • Country: pt
  • Behind every alfoil hat is a genius
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2016, 01:38:04 am »
How does it work buying a 60% book?  Looks interesting and I like the web site.  thanks

Did you not see that you can download it, so far, as is, FOR FREE?
http://samples.leanpub.com/mastering-stm32-sample.pdf

And... "The LeanPub platform works so that once you buy the full book you receive all the updates for free. LeanPub is a sort of crowdfunding platform for books."
« Last Edit: June 05, 2016, 01:44:15 am by Quarlo Klobrigney »
Voltage does not flow, nor does it go.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline ebclr

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1989
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #65 on: June 05, 2016, 01:56:54 am »
Here you can check

http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/development-tools/software-development-tools/stm32-software-development-tools.html?querycriteria=productId=SC2106

 I suggest MDK-ARM-STM32 Free MDK-ARM licenses can be activated for both STM32F0 and STM32L0
 

Offline Quarlo Klobrigney

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 551
  • Country: pt
  • Behind every alfoil hat is a genius
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #66 on: June 05, 2016, 02:01:46 am »
The original topic was what alternatives were there for high $$ (or insert you method of payment here), for development tools. For the learner or hobbiest that would like to do more than blink a LED because of time or code size limitations, Eclipse is about the only answer to someone not making a living off it. If you are, then pay...

Off the original topic, I purchased the 60% incomplete book, with all of its 587 pages so far.
Looks a treat.
Voltage does not flow, nor does it go.
 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #67 on: June 05, 2016, 02:28:48 am »
How does it work buying a 60% book?  Looks interesting and I like the web site.  thanks

Did you not see that you can download it, so far, as is, FOR FREE?
http://samples.leanpub.com/mastering-stm32-sample.pdf

And... "The LeanPub platform works so that once you buy the full book you receive all the updates for free. LeanPub is a sort of crowdfunding platform for books."

Yes but the free version is an evaluation copy - the endings of most chapters are missing
YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline ebclr

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1989
  • Country: 00
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #68 on: June 05, 2016, 02:53:10 am »
Isn't evaluation

Only works with stm products, no limitation

 

Offline ez24

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3092
  • Country: us
  • L.D.A.
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #69 on: June 05, 2016, 03:17:05 am »
Isn't evaluation

Only works with stm products, no limitation

I think we are getting things mixed up - I am talking about a book

https://leanpub.com/mastering-stm32

which has a free sample but if you look at the sale of it - it shows that the book is only 60% complete but still for sale.  This is the part I do not get.   Looks like the author did a good job on it and I think I will buy it if I can figure out the 60% of the deal.

YouTube and Website Electronic Resources ------>  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/other-blog-specific/a/msg1341166/#msg1341166
 

Offline AndyC_772

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3502
  • Country: gb
  • Professional design engineer
    • Cawte Engineering | Reliable Electronics
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #70 on: June 05, 2016, 09:44:58 am »
Eclipse is about the only answer to someone not making a living off it. If you are, then pay...

If you're not developing commercially, then CrossWorks is US$150. If your code fits into 16k, it's free.

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12611
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Alternative to CooCox for STM32 development
« Reply #71 on: June 05, 2016, 10:53:41 am »
If you're not developing commercially, then CrossWorks is US$150. If your code fits into 16k, it's free.

If it's not for work, then GCC should work well, or Atollic free version. Both does not come with potent debugger, but should be fine for DIYers.
I built my senior design robot platform with GCC, from MCU part (MSP430+SPI+nRF+command parser+PID+PWM+power mgmt), cluster controller part (Galileo, Arduino+nRF+BT), computer control panel (wxWidgets+OpenCV+TCP/IP+PID+my own CV algorithm) to internet server (TCP/IP, cryptography, authentication and command queue). The only debugging tool is printf and a blinking LED, yet I managed to finish the entire project, from concept to finish, from schematic level to protocol, without a single library except for OpenCV and wx, almost on my own with help from a junior student (who did 20% of the work), in less than a year.
I use GCC exclusively on my all project till now on all platforms with only 2 exceptions: where there is a free or mandatory tool from the chip maker (Simplicity Studio, CCES, etc.) or ARM-M (occasionally, for quick projects, ImageCraft Compiler courtesy of forum member Richardman).
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf