Asm source code page?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi,


In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?


Thanks,
Craig
http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/


http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
I have a very old document from 2001 with various notes and examples in
assembler, called APP_14306. there are loads of other app notes (mostly
older) that are in assembler, there are alos lots of files posted on the
yahoo group in assembler. What specifically are you looking for? To
learn assembler, a specific app note etc. I write almost exclusively in
assembler for most micros, including the MSP430, but that seems to be
rare enough for most manuafacturers, including Ti to have stopped
supporting the use of assembler in their app notes.

Al

On 10/01/2016 5:17 PM, Craig Carmichael [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
> dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
> source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
> 16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
> had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
> bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
> is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
> http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/
>
>
> http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
> project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Craig Carmichael <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:

>In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
>dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
>source.

I'd normally rely on Onestone to provide you with the better
link here. He uses assembly coding a lot.

However, it's possible that the site you are thinking about
has either moved or has been removed.

When the MSP430 was first fielded, there would naturally be
more interest in assembly since the C compilers were still
being developed and didn't offer a similar wide array of
options that they did, later on. Today, too few do any
project entirely in assembly (I still do, sometimes; but most
projects I do [regardless of processor, actually] are a
mixture of C and assembly.) Times change, both broadly
speaking as well as within the maturity cycles of specific
processors/families.

>I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
>16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines,

I've posted up several different division routines, both
integer and floating point and for various size words, which
are free for anyone to use and are amongst the faster such
routines you should find (at least, for earlier MSP430
incarnations.) They come in loop and unrolled loop versions.
But it sounds as though you may be looking for other things
right now. Still, if you want that too, I can send them
along. But they are for the IAR assembler tool (though I've
adapted such code for ImageCraft's tools, too.)

>and I thought I
>had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
>bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
>is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?

Whose assembler are you planning to use? It matters some.

(Not that I have a horde of web sites to recommend. But
anyone offering you web pages of sample source code in
assembler may want to know which assembler you plan to use.
It helps to know before offering something useful.)

What are your goals here? Learning assembly, generally?
Learning to use some specific assembler? Learning to
integrate assembly code with C code? What IDE, as well?

Jon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:

>... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?

Just as an additional note...

If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:

http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html

where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
linker toolset.

You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
developing larger applications then you should consider other
tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
TI's page here:

http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page

However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
that you don't see there:

http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html

I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
the TI page.

If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.

If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
are careful about library use (not using any library other
than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.

For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
widest range of options available for their project
development so that the overall development process can be
optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
out before making a final decision and spending your money.

As an employee in an organization with more than one
programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
what has been established by careful consideration of your
team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
for those depending on you.
\
Jon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi Craig,

go to ti.com/msp430
then select the Tools&Software Tab
you will be here:( http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-
bit/msp/tools_software.page )

scroll down (80%) to "code examples"
and click on the link for your controller.
(searching on the TI Webpage is more and more like searching for a Easter
Egg;-)

Matthias

"Craig Carmichael [hidden email] [msp430]" <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
>
> In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
> dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
> source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
> 16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
> had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
> bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
> is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
> http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/
>
>
> http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
> project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Craig Carmichael <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
I agree Matthias, every time Ti 'updates' its page they make it even
more inscrutable and difficult to use. I rarely go there any more.

Al

On 11/01/2016 8:38 AM, Matthias Weingart [hidden email] [msp430]
wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> go to ti.com/msp430
> then select the Tools&Software Tab
> you will be here:( http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-
> bit/msp/tools_software.page )
>
> scroll down (80%) to "code examples"
> and click on the link for your controller.
> (searching on the TI Webpage is more and more like searching for a Easter
> Egg;-)
>
> Matthias
>
> "Craig Carmichael [hidden email] [msp430]" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
>> dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
>> source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
>> 16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
>> had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
>> bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
>> is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>> http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/
>>
>>
>> http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
>> project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>> Posted by: Craig Carmichael <[hidden email]>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Matthias Weingart <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
I Totally agree with Jon. IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything
I want, is unlimited, is free, and since I don't use any libraries from
third parties there are no royalty issues. The IDE is straightforward,
and quite good. It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have
been cleaned up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid
them! I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of
assemblers I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff that
I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an original
version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.

Cheers

Al

On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>
>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
> Just as an additional note...
>
> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
> the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
> Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
> does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:
>
> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html
>
> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
> IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
> restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
> Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
> from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
> C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
> code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
> assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
> assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
> lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
> the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
> and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
> at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
> feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
> linker toolset.
>
> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
> Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
> sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
> developing larger applications then you should consider other
> tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
> TI's page here:
>
> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page
>
> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
> options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
> that you don't see there:
>
> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>
> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
> the TI page.
>
> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
> make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
> styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.
>
> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
> need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
> as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
> believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
> commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
> are careful about library use (not using any library other
> than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
> be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>
> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
> support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
> widest range of options available for their project
> development so that the overall development process can be
> optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
> their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
> various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
> vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
> feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
> their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
> think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
> out before making a final decision and spending your money.
>
> As an employee in an organization with more than one
> programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
> what has been established by careful consideration of your
> team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
> get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
> for those depending on you.
> \
> Jon
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:

>I Totally agree with Jon.

  :)

>IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything
>I want, is unlimited, is free, and since I don't use any libraries from
>third parties there are no royalty issues.

That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT
of assemblers in my life and have written a few, as well.
This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros
usually get. The abstract segmentation model is great. The
macro facility could be better, but I consider it "good
enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some other
tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be
fruitfully used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet,
since IAR's capabilities are good enough for now.)

>The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.

It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very
capable as you advance further over time. It just wears well
over time. They've done a very good job on its design. And,
fortunately for some of us, have decided to offer a fully
functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
I'm in debt to them for this fact.

(I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed
more than an additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430
project, so the KickStart has been "good enough" for all my
project uses so far.)

>It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have
>been cleaned up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid
>them!

I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found
things that took a moment to consider before I fully
understood them. But once I gathered up the conceptual model
they made good sense to me.

The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with
their toolset. For example, I needed a way to find the
largest common divisor for a pair of configuration parameters
to help me set up a clocking system that would serve two
purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in
their operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that,
too. Worked perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see
"strange" there, I suppose. But that's my fault, not IARs!

>I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of
>assemblers I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.

That's pretty much my feeling, too.

>Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff that
>I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an original
>version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.

Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps,
because I haven't done as much as you have and haven't
reached a situation where the trouble would have been worth
it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to change standard
facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
rather use an additional file I create and add it to the
inclusion list. But again, you probably have a wider array of
usages than I do and I may very well have made similar
choices if I had faced similar situations, too.

Jon

>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>
>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>> Just as an additional note...
>>
>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
>> the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
>> Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
>> does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:
>>
>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html
>>
>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
>> IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
>> restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
>> Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
>> from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
>> C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
>> code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
>> assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
>> assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
>> lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
>> the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
>> and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
>> at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
>> feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
>> linker toolset.
>>
>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
>> Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
>> sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
>> developing larger applications then you should consider other
>> tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
>> TI's page here:
>>
>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page
>>
>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
>> options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
>> that you don't see there:
>>
>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>
>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
>> the TI page.
>>
>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
>> make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
>> styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.
>>
>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
>> need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
>> as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
>> believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
>> commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
>> are careful about library use (not using any library other
>> than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
>> be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>
>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
>> support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
>> widest range of options available for their project
>> development so that the overall development process can be
>> optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
>> their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
>> various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
>> vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
>> feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
>> their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
>> think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
>> out before making a final decision and spending your money.
>>
>> As an employee in an organization with more than one
>> programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
>> what has been established by careful consideration of your
>> team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
>> get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
>> for those depending on you.
>>
>> Jon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi Jon, the strange stuff I talk about was a tendency to crash if you
disconnected power from the target unit accidentally. Or to lose lose
contact and have to be reset or restarted if the USB lost contact. I
even had one version that would crash my computer regularly. I tested
all of these across at least 2 machines and a laptop, but that was a
long time ago. It has been solid for quite a few years now. In the very
early days of the flash parts you actually had to match the Kickstart
version to the batch number, but that was mostly cured when Ti moved
from the clunky old serial port JTAG to the USB one.

I too am extremely grateful to IAR for fielding such a well rounded tool
for free for all these years. I have written hundreds of programs using
it, and mostly it has been a very enjoyable process for me.

Al

On 12/01/2016 7:59 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
>
>> I Totally agree with Jon.
>    :)
>
>> IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything
>> I want, is unlimited, is free, and since I don't use any libraries from
>> third parties there are no royalty issues.
> That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT
> of assemblers in my life and have written a few, as well.
> This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros
> usually get. The abstract segmentation model is great. The
> macro facility could be better, but I consider it "good
> enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some other
> tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
> Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be
> fruitfully used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet,
> since IAR's capabilities are good enough for now.)
>
>> The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.
> It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very
> capable as you advance further over time. It just wears well
> over time. They've done a very good job on its design. And,
> fortunately for some of us, have decided to offer a fully
> functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
> I'm in debt to them for this fact.
>
> (I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed
> more than an additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430
> project, so the KickStart has been "good enough" for all my
> project uses so far.)
>
>> It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have
>> been cleaned up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid
>> them!
> I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found
> things that took a moment to consider before I fully
> understood them. But once I gathered up the conceptual model
> they made good sense to me.
>
> The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with
> their toolset. For example, I needed a way to find the
> largest common divisor for a pair of configuration parameters
> to help me set up a clocking system that would serve two
> purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in
> their operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that,
> too. Worked perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see
> "strange" there, I suppose. But that's my fault, not IARs!
>
>> I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of
>> assemblers I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
> That's pretty much my feeling, too.
>
>> Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>> because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>> always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff that
>> I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an original
>> version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.
> Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps,
> because I haven't done as much as you have and haven't
> reached a situation where the trouble would have been worth
> it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to change standard
> facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
> rather use an additional file I create and add it to the
> inclusion list. But again, you probably have a wider array of
> usages than I do and I may very well have made similar
> choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
>
> Jon
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>> Just as an additional note...
>>>
>>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
>>> the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
>>> Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
>>> does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:
>>>
>>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html
>>>
>>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
>>> IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
>>> restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
>>> Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
>>> from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
>>> C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
>>> code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
>>> assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
>>> assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
>>> lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
>>> the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
>>> and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
>>> at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
>>> feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
>>> linker toolset.
>>>
>>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
>>> Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
>>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
>>> sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
>>> developing larger applications then you should consider other
>>> tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
>>> TI's page here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page
>>>
>>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
>>> options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
>>> that you don't see there:
>>>
>>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
>>> the TI page.
>>>
>>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
>>> make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
>>> styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.
>>>
>>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
>>> need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
>>> as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
>>> believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
>>> commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
>>> are careful about library use (not using any library other
>>> than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
>>> be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>>
>>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
>>> support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
>>> widest range of options available for their project
>>> development so that the overall development process can be
>>> optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
>>> their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
>>> various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
>>> vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
>>> feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
>>> their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
>>> think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
>>> out before making a final decision and spending your money.
>>>
>>> As an employee in an organization with more than one
>>> programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
>>> what has been established by careful consideration of your
>>> team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
>>> get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
>>> for those depending on you.
>>>
>>> Jon
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
sorry for my jumping in
i had a crash and in 2 computers a very big storm with lightnings so everything is lost
but i have some programmed chips that i uploaded from them an  image as TI-txt  files
can i disassemble them with kickstart
i thank you for your consideration
Ezra

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Onestone [hidden email] [msp430] <[hidden email]>
To: msp430 <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2016 1:47 am
Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?



 
   
                 
        Hi Jon, the strange stuff I talk about was a      tendency to crash if you disconnected power from the target unit      accidentally. Or to lose lose contact and have to be reset or      restarted if the USB lost contact. I even had one version that      would crash my computer regularly. I tested all of these across at      least 2 machines and a laptop, but that was a long time ago. It      has been solid for quite a few years now. In the very early days      of the flash parts you actually had to match the Kickstart version      to the batch number, but that was mostly cured when Ti moved from      the clunky old serial port JTAG to the USB one.
     
      I too am extremely grateful to IAR for fielding such a well      rounded tool for free for all these years. I have written hundreds      of programs using it, and mostly it has been a very enjoyable      process for me.
     
      Al
   
   
On 12/01/2016 7:59 AM, Jon Kirwan      [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
   
   
     
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:


     
       
I Totally agree with Jon.

     
     
  :)


     
       
IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything
I want, is unlimited, is free, and since I don't use any libraries from
third parties there are no royalty issues.

     
     
That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT
of assemblers in my life and have written a few, as well.
This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros
usually get. The abstract segmentation model is great. The
macro facility could be better, but I consider it "good
enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some other
tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be
fruitfully used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet,
since IAR's capabilities are good enough for now.)


     
       
The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.

     
     
It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very
capable as you advance further over time. It just wears well
over time. They've done a very good job on its design. And,
fortunately for some of us, have decided to offer a fully
functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
I'm in debt to them for this fact.

(I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed
more than an additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430
project, so the KickStart has been "good enough" for all my
project uses so far.)


     
       
It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have
been cleaned up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid
them!

     
     
I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found
things that took a moment to consider before I fully
understood them. But once I gathered up the conceptual model
they made good sense to me.

The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with
their toolset. For example, I needed a way to find the
largest common divisor for a pair of configuration parameters
to help me set up a clocking system that would serve two
purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in
their operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that,
too. Worked perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see
"strange" there, I suppose. But that's my fault, not IARs!


     
       
I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of
assemblers I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.

     
     
That's pretty much my feeling, too.


     
       
Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff that
I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an original
version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.

     
     
Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps,
because I haven't done as much as you have and haven't
reached a situation where the trouble would have been worth
it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to change standard
facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
rather use an additional file I create and add it to the
inclusion list. But again, you probably have a wider array of
usages than I do and I may very well have made similar
choices if I had faced similar situations, too.

Jon


     
       
Cheers

Al

On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

       
         
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:


         
           
... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?

         
         
Just as an additional note...

If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:

http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html

where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
linker toolset.

You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
developing larger applications then you should consider other
tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
TI's page here:

http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page

However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
that you don't see there:

http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html

I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
the TI page.

If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.

If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
are careful about library use (not using any library other
than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.

For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
widest range of options available for their project
development so that the overall development process can be
optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
out before making a final decision and spending your money.

As an employee in an organization with more than one
programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
what has been established by careful consideration of your
team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
for those depending on you.

Jon

       
     
     
------------------------------------
Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
[hidden email]


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links





   
   
 
   
             

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:29 +1030, Al wrote:

>Hi Jon, the strange stuff I talk about was a tendency to crash if you
>disconnected power from the target unit accidentally. Or to lose lose
>contact and have to be reset or restarted if the USB lost contact. I
>even had one version that would crash my computer regularly. I tested
>all of these across at least 2 machines and a laptop, but that was a
>long time ago.

Oh. Yeah. I *DO* have troubles with the MSP430 drivers. Or
*HAVE HAD*, anyway. I'll have to go download the newest
Kickstart from IAR, load it onto this new desktop, and see
what happens here. Been meaning to do that, anyway. I'm off
doing non-MSP430 stuff, so it's been a while.

(I'm working on data structures and techniques that scale
nearly linearly on [16 and more] multi-cpu/multi-core
systems, including some novel thoughts on software
transactional memory applied to shared B+ tree structures,
for one example.)

>It has been solid for quite a few years now. In the very
>early days of the flash parts you actually had to match the Kickstart
>version to the batch number, but that was mostly cured when Ti moved
>from the clunky old serial port JTAG to the USB one.

Hmm. Okay.

>I too am extremely grateful to IAR for fielding such a well rounded tool
>for free for all these years. I have written hundreds of programs using
>it, and mostly it has been a very enjoyable process for me.

It's just good stuff for assembly programmers, a diminishing
percentage as that group may be these days. It's also good
for anyone mixing assembly and C (at least some of which, in
embedded work, they almost always should be doing anyway.) I
like the way they've integrated their compiler and assembler
tool sets. And since it is so easy to install and get using
right away, I recommend it to students and hobbyists as a
first choice tool. But I also have a great deal of respect
for several of the other compiler tool vendors in the MSP430
space. Good folks, good tools. Just not such a greased slide
as IAR offers for newbies.

Jon

>
>Al
>
>On 12/01/2016 7:59 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
>>
>>> I Totally agree with Jon.
>>    :)
>>
>>> IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything
>>> I want, is unlimited, is free, and since I don't use any libraries from
>>> third parties there are no royalty issues.
>> That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT
>> of assemblers in my life and have written a few, as well.
>> This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros
>> usually get. The abstract segmentation model is great. The
>> macro facility could be better, but I consider it "good
>> enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some other
>> tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
>> Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be
>> fruitfully used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet,
>> since IAR's capabilities are good enough for now.)
>>
>>> The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.
>> It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very
>> capable as you advance further over time. It just wears well
>> over time. They've done a very good job on its design. And,
>> fortunately for some of us, have decided to offer a fully
>> functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
>> I'm in debt to them for this fact.
>>
>> (I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed
>> more than an additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430
>> project, so the KickStart has been "good enough" for all my
>> project uses so far.)
>>
>>> It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have
>>> been cleaned up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid
>>> them!
>> I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found
>> things that took a moment to consider before I fully
>> understood them. But once I gathered up the conceptual model
>> they made good sense to me.
>>
>> The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with
>> their toolset. For example, I needed a way to find the
>> largest common divisor for a pair of configuration parameters
>> to help me set up a clocking system that would serve two
>> purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in
>> their operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that,
>> too. Worked perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see
>> "strange" there, I suppose. But that's my fault, not IARs!
>>
>>> I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of
>>> assemblers I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
>> That's pretty much my feeling, too.
>>
>>> Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>>> because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>>> always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff that
>>> I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an original
>>> version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.
>> Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps,
>> because I haven't done as much as you have and haven't
>> reached a situation where the trouble would have been worth
>> it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to change standard
>> facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
>> rather use an additional file I create and add it to the
>> inclusion list. But again, you probably have a wider array of
>> usages than I do and I may very well have made similar
>> choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>>> Just as an additional note...
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for
>>>> the MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's
>>>> Kickstart tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and
>>>> does NOT have any code size limitations at all. See:
>>>>
>>>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_packages.html
>>>>
>>>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The
>>>> IAR Assembler delivered is the full version without any
>>>> restrictions" and the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK
>>>> Linker will link ... an unlimited amount of code originating
>>>> from assembly code." (The 4th bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart
>>>> C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in the amount of assembly
>>>> code read.") This pretty much means you get an excellent
>>>> assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>>>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for
>>>> assembly coding development and I really like the tools a
>>>> lot, as they present a very clean, orthogonal design with all
>>>> the features you need. Other assembler tools I've used, off
>>>> and on, tend to have odd "limitations" which are frustrating
>>>> at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never wished for a
>>>> feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler +
>>>> linker toolset.
>>>>
>>>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free
>>>> Kickstart version does limit your final application size.
>>>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code
>>>> sizes. If you do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on
>>>> developing larger applications then you should consider other
>>>> tools for a cost/benefit analysis. A starting point might be
>>>> TI's page here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_software.page
>>>>
>>>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your
>>>> options. Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples
>>>> that you don't see there:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>>>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in
>>>> the TI page.
>>>>
>>>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to
>>>> make your own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding
>>>> styles. Whatever makes you happy works just fine.
>>>>
>>>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you
>>>> need to be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well
>>>> as compiler generated output) for the tools you apply. I
>>>> believe you can use the IAR assembler/linker toolchain for
>>>> commercial products without paying them a fee, so long as you
>>>> are careful about library use (not using any library other
>>>> than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like you might
>>>> be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>>>
>>>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to
>>>> support mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the
>>>> widest range of options available for their project
>>>> development so that the overall development process can be
>>>> optimized for them, weighing all conditions appropriate to
>>>> their circumstances. You should then carefully study the
>>>> various commercial options. But you should ALSO contact the
>>>> vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get a
>>>> feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy
>>>> their tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I
>>>> think. But it helps to make contact and see how things play
>>>> out before making a final decision and spending your money.
>>>>
>>>> As an employee in an organization with more than one
>>>> programmer, which does NOT sound like your situation, you do
>>>> what has been established by careful consideration of your
>>>> team members. If you are a sole employee, then I suppose you
>>>> get to make your own choices but you need to make them well
>>>> for those depending on you.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>> Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:13:53 -0500, Ezra wrote:

>i had a crash and in 2 computers a very big storm with lightnings so everything is lost
>but i have some programmed chips that i uploaded from them an  image as TI-txt  files
>can i disassemble them with kickstart

I think so. I recall that there are a few file formats that
IAR's debugger supports, for loading as code/data. However,
I'm not sure about the TI-txt format you mentioned. You may
need to do some "adjustments" to the formatting in order to
get the debugger (actually, probably the simulator instead so
that you don't need to actually hook up any real device at
the time) to load the code and become accessible for a
disassembly listing output. But I think you can succeed.

One I get the newest tools downloaded from IAR and loaded
onto this machine, I can perhaps do a better job of
suggesting specific things to try out here. But right now
it's just been too long and I forget where to look. But I
seem to recall some file format drop down boxes for the
simulator. That's where I'd try looking, first.

Jon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Thank you jon
i will dowmload kickstart ant try no problem translating formats
Ezra

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] <[hidden email]>
To: MSP430 List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2016 2:51 am
Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?



 
   
                 
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:13:53 -0500, Ezra wrote:

>i had a crash and in 2 computers a very big storm with lightnings so everything is lost
>but i have some programmed chips that i uploaded from them an  image as TI-txt  files
>can i disassemble them with kickstart

I think so. I recall that there are a few file formats that
IAR's debugger supports, for loading as code/data. However,
I'm not sure about the TI-txt format you mentioned. You may
need to do some "adjustments" to the formatting in order to
get the debugger (actually, probably the simulator instead so
that you don't need to actually hook up any real device at
the time) to load the code and become accessible for a
disassembly listing output. But I think you can succeed.

One I get the newest tools downloaded from IAR and loaded
onto this machine, I can perhaps do a better job of
suggesting specific things to try out here. But right now
it's just been too long and I forget where to look. But I
seem to recall some file format drop down boxes for the
simulator. That's where I'd try looking, first.

Jon

   
             

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi Jon, Al

I may be a little off topic here. Like yourselves I have used IAR and
assembler for many years. I like the thought of using both assembler and C
so I can use existing software and also use some of the advantages of C. I
started to have a look at CCS6 as I thought I would have to buy a copy of
IAR for the use of C. I only see one document on the TI website that refers
to mixing C and assembler and it is quite old. Do you have any references to
any other documentation on mixing the 2 and using IAR?

Thanks

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 5:29 AM
To: MSP430 List
Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:

>I Totally agree with Jon.

  :)

>IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything I want, is unlimited, is
>free, and since I don't use any libraries from third parties there are
>no royalty issues.

That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT of assemblers
in my life and have written a few, as well.
This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros usually get. The
abstract segmentation model is great. The macro facility could be better,
but I consider it "good enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some
other tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be fruitfully
used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet, since IAR's capabilities are
good enough for now.)

>The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.

It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very capable as you
advance further over time. It just wears well over time. They've done a very
good job on its design. And, fortunately for some of us, have decided to
offer a fully functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
I'm in debt to them for this fact.

(I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed more than an
additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430 project, so the KickStart
has been "good enough" for all my project uses so far.)

>It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have been cleaned
>up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid them!

I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found things that took a
moment to consider before I fully understood them. But once I gathered up
the conceptual model they made good sense to me.

The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with their toolset.
For example, I needed a way to find the largest common divisor for a pair of
configuration parameters to help me set up a clocking system that would
serve two purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in their
operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that, too. Worked
perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see "strange" there, I suppose.
But that's my fault, not IARs!

>I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of assemblers
>I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.

That's pretty much my feeling, too.

>Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff
>that I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an
>original version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.

Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps, because I
haven't done as much as you have and haven't reached a situation where the
trouble would have been worth it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to
change standard facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
rather use an additional file I create and add it to the inclusion list. But
again, you probably have a wider array of usages than I do and I may very
well have made similar choices if I had faced similar situations, too.

Jon

>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>
>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>> Just as an additional note...
>>
>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for the
>> MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's Kickstart
>> tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and does NOT have any
>> code size limitations at all. See:
>>
>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_pac
>> kages.html
>>
>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The IAR
>> Assembler delivered is the full version without any restrictions" and
>> the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK Linker will link ... an
>> unlimited amount of code originating from assembly code." (The 4th
>> bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in
>> the amount of assembly code read.") This pretty much means you get an
>> excellent assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for assembly
>> coding development and I really like the tools a lot, as they present
>> a very clean, orthogonal design with all the features you need. Other
>> assembler tools I've used, off and on, tend to have odd "limitations"
>> which are frustrating at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never
>> wished for a feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler
>> + linker toolset.
>>
>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free Kickstart
>> version does limit your final application size.
>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code sizes. If you
>> do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on developing larger
>> applications then you should consider other tools for a cost/benefit
>> analysis. A starting point might be TI's page here:
>>
>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_so
>> ftware.page
>>
>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your options.
>> Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples that you don't see
>> there:
>>
>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>
>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in the TI
>> page.
>>
>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to make your
>> own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding styles. Whatever
>> makes you happy works just fine.
>>
>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you need to
>> be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well as compiler
>> generated output) for the tools you apply. I believe you can use the
>> IAR assembler/linker toolchain for commercial products without paying
>> them a fee, so long as you are careful about library use (not using
>> any library other than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like
>> you might be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>
>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to support
>> mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the widest range of
>> options available for their project development so that the overall
>> development process can be optimized for them, weighing all
>> conditions appropriate to their circumstances. You should then
>> carefully study the various commercial options. But you should ALSO
>> contact the vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get
>> a feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy their
>> tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I think. But it
>> helps to make contact and see how things play out before making a
>> final decision and spending your money.
>>
>> As an employee in an organization with more than one programmer,
>> which does NOT sound like your situation, you do what has been
>> established by careful consideration of your team members. If you are
>> a sole employee, then I suppose you get to make your own choices but
>> you need to make them well for those depending on you.
>>
>> Jon


------------------------------------
Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
[hidden email]


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi Peter, the IAR compiler reference guide has a chapter on mixing C and
assembler, it's part of the Kickstart package, under the doc sub
directory. I can email iot if you can't find it.

Al

On 12/01/2016 12:54 PM, 'Peter Grey' [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> Hi Jon, Al
>
> I may be a little off topic here. Like yourselves I have used IAR and
> assembler for many years. I like the thought of using both assembler and C
> so I can use existing software and also use some of the advantages of C. I
> started to have a look at CCS6 as I thought I would have to buy a copy of
> IAR for the use of C. I only see one document on the TI website that refers
> to mixing C and assembler and it is quite old. Do you have any references to
> any other documentation on mixing the 2 and using IAR?
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 5:29 AM
> To: MSP430 List
> Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
>
>> I Totally agree with Jon.
>    :)
>
>> IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything I want, is unlimited, is
>> free, and since I don't use any libraries from third parties there are
>> no royalty issues.
> That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT of assemblers
> in my life and have written a few, as well.
> This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros usually get. The
> abstract segmentation model is great. The macro facility could be better,
> but I consider it "good enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some
> other tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
> Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be fruitfully
> used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet, since IAR's capabilities are
> good enough for now.)
>
>> The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.
> It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very capable as you
> advance further over time. It just wears well over time. They've done a very
> good job on its design. And, fortunately for some of us, have decided to
> offer a fully functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
> I'm in debt to them for this fact.
>
> (I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed more than an
> additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430 project, so the KickStart
> has been "good enough" for all my project uses so far.)
>
>> It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have been cleaned
>> up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid them!
> I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found things that took a
> moment to consider before I fully understood them. But once I gathered up
> the conceptual model they made good sense to me.
>
> The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with their toolset.
> For example, I needed a way to find the largest common divisor for a pair of
> configuration parameters to help me set up a clocking system that would
> serve two purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in their
> operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that, too. Worked
> perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see "strange" there, I suppose.
> But that's my fault, not IARs!
>
>> I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of assemblers
>> I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
> That's pretty much my feeling, too.
>
>> Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>> because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>> always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff
>> that I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an
>> original version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.
> Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps, because I
> haven't done as much as you have and haven't reached a situation where the
> trouble would have been worth it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to
> change standard facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
> rather use an additional file I create and add it to the inclusion list. But
> again, you probably have a wider array of usages than I do and I may very
> well have made similar choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
>
> Jon
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>> Just as an additional note...
>>>
>>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for the
>>> MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's Kickstart
>>> tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and does NOT have any
>>> code size limitations at all. See:
>>>
>>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_pac
>>> kages.html
>>>
>>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The IAR
>>> Assembler delivered is the full version without any restrictions" and
>>> the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK Linker will link ... an
>>> unlimited amount of code originating from assembly code." (The 4th
>>> bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in
>>> the amount of assembly code read.") This pretty much means you get an
>>> excellent assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for assembly
>>> coding development and I really like the tools a lot, as they present
>>> a very clean, orthogonal design with all the features you need. Other
>>> assembler tools I've used, off and on, tend to have odd "limitations"
>>> which are frustrating at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never
>>> wished for a feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler
>>> + linker toolset.
>>>
>>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free Kickstart
>>> version does limit your final application size.
>>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code sizes. If you
>>> do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on developing larger
>>> applications then you should consider other tools for a cost/benefit
>>> analysis. A starting point might be TI's page here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_so
>>> ftware.page
>>>
>>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your options.
>>> Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples that you don't see
>>> there:
>>>
>>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in the TI
>>> page.
>>>
>>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to make your
>>> own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding styles. Whatever
>>> makes you happy works just fine.
>>>
>>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you need to
>>> be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well as compiler
>>> generated output) for the tools you apply. I believe you can use the
>>> IAR assembler/linker toolchain for commercial products without paying
>>> them a fee, so long as you are careful about library use (not using
>>> any library other than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like
>>> you might be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>>
>>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to support
>>> mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the widest range of
>>> options available for their project development so that the overall
>>> development process can be optimized for them, weighing all
>>> conditions appropriate to their circumstances. You should then
>>> carefully study the various commercial options. But you should ALSO
>>> contact the vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get
>>> a feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy their
>>> tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I think. But it
>>> helps to make contact and see how things play out before making a
>>> final decision and spending your money.
>>>
>>> As an employee in an organization with more than one programmer,
>>> which does NOT sound like your situation, you do what has been
>>> established by careful consideration of your team members. If you are
>>> a sole employee, then I suppose you get to make your own choices but
>>> you need to make them well for those depending on you.
>>>
>>> Jon
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Jon Kirwan <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: "Peter Grey" <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Hi Al

 

I found the chapter. I will have a read and see how it goes.

 

Thanks

 

Peter

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 11:58 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?

 



Hi Peter, the IAR compiler reference guide has a chapter on mixing C and assembler, it's part of the Kickstart package, under the doc sub directory. I can email iot if you can't find it.

Al

On 12/01/2016 12:54 PM, 'Peter Grey' [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

Hi Jon, Al
 
I may be a little off topic here. Like yourselves I have used IAR and
assembler for many years. I like the thought of using both assembler and C
so I can use existing software and also use some of the advantages of C. I
started to have a look at CCS6 as I thought I would have to buy a copy of
IAR for the use of C. I only see one document on the TI website that refers
to mixing C and assembler and it is quite old. Do you have any references to
any other documentation on mixing the 2 and using IAR?
 
Thanks
 
Peter
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 5:29 AM
To: MSP430 List
Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?
 
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
 

I Totally agree with Jon.

 
  :)
 

IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything I want, is unlimited, is
free, and since I don't use any libraries from third parties there are
no royalty issues.

 
That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT of assemblers
in my life and have written a few, as well.
This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros usually get. The
abstract segmentation model is great. The macro facility could be better,
but I consider it "good enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some
other tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be fruitfully
used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet, since IAR's capabilities are
good enough for now.)
 

The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.

 
It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very capable as you
advance further over time. It just wears well over time. They've done a very
good job on its design. And, fortunately for some of us, have decided to
offer a fully functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
I'm in debt to them for this fact.
 
(I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed more than an
additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430 project, so the KickStart
has been "good enough" for all my project uses so far.)
 

It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have been cleaned
up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid them!

 
I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found things that took a
moment to consider before I fully understood them. But once I gathered up
the conceptual model they made good sense to me.
 
The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with their toolset.
For example, I needed a way to find the largest common divisor for a pair of
configuration parameters to help me set up a clocking system that would
serve two purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in their
operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that, too. Worked
perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see "strange" there, I suppose.
But that's my fault, not IARs!
 

I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of assemblers
I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.

 
That's pretty much my feeling, too.
 

Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff
that I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an
original version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.

 
Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps, because I
haven't done as much as you have and haven't reached a situation where the
trouble would have been worth it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to
change standard facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
rather use an additional file I create and add it to the inclusion list. But
again, you probably have a wider array of usages than I do and I may very
well have made similar choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
 
Jon
 

Cheers
 
Al
 
On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
 

... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?

Just as an additional note...
 
If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for the
MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's Kickstart
tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and does NOT have any
code size limitations at all. See:
 
http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_pac
kages.html
 
where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The IAR
Assembler delivered is the full version without any restrictions" and
the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK Linker will link ... an
unlimited amount of code originating from assembly code." (The 4th
bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in
the amount of assembly code read.") This pretty much means you get an
excellent assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for assembly
coding development and I really like the tools a lot, as they present
a very clean, orthogonal design with all the features you need. Other
assembler tools I've used, off and on, tend to have odd "limitations"
which are frustrating at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never
wished for a feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler
+ linker toolset.
 
You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free Kickstart
version does limit your final application size.
IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code sizes. If you
do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on developing larger
applications then you should consider other tools for a cost/benefit
analysis. A starting point might be TI's page here:
 
http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_so
ftware.page
 
However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your options.
Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples that you don't see
there:
 
http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
 
I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in the TI
page.
 
If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to make your
own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding styles. Whatever
makes you happy works just fine.
 
If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you need to
be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well as compiler
generated output) for the tools you apply. I believe you can use the
IAR assembler/linker toolchain for commercial products without paying
them a fee, so long as you are careful about library use (not using
any library other than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like
you might be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
 
For professional contract work, you will want to be able to support
mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the widest range of
options available for their project development so that the overall
development process can be optimized for them, weighing all
conditions appropriate to their circumstances. You should then
carefully study the various commercial options. But you should ALSO
contact the vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get
a feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy their
tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I think. But it
helps to make contact and see how things play out before making a
final decision and spending your money.
 
As an employee in an organization with more than one programmer,
which does NOT sound like your situation, you do what has been
established by careful consideration of your team members. If you are
a sole employee, then I suppose you get to make your own choices but
you need to make them well for those depending on you.
 
Jon

 
 
------------------------------------
Posted by: Jon Kirwan  <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]>
------------------------------------
 
To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
 
 
------------------------------------
 
Yahoo Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------
Posted by: "Peter Grey"  <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]>
------------------------------------
 
To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
 
 
------------------------------------
 
Yahoo Groups Links
 
 
 
 









Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list

It's a long time since I have posted in this group, and I know I am at
odds with other opinions here - but it is perhaps good to have a balance
to the endless praise of IAR.

When I started using msp430's, IAR was the only option.  Other tool
vendors (free, cheap or expense) had to fight with TI to get any
information or support.  So like everyone else who didn't want to pay
huge prices for IAR's C compiler, I used IAR's assembler and IDE.

It is perhaps a decade since I have used this combination, so things may
have changed - but I doubt if they have changed significantly for a free
tool from IAR that is little used, and where the market for the paid
version (their C compiler) of this target is very much on the decline.


The assembler is okay.  It is not "excellent", it's just okay.  It is
fairly simple, and does not have particularly advanced features - it is
simply a straightforward assembler.  Often that is all you want from an
assembler - it was certainly enough for me to write my code.  But it is
nothing special, and has no outstanding or exciting additional features.
 I have used worse, and used better, but usually assembly code has a
simple structure and the IAR assembler handled that fine.

I did not like the IDE (note again that it is something around a decade
since I used it - the IDE may have changed since then).  I used my own
makefiles, and a different editor.  I used the debugger sometimes, but
always felt it was awkward and that assembly was very much a
second-class citizen to the debugger.  In fact, I felt that some aspects
of the debugger (especially trying to view registers and expressions)
were intentionally bad - almost to the point of trying to persuade
people to buy the C compiler just to get decent debugging.  In practice,
most of my work was done without using the IDE or debugger at all.


When the early gcc port for msp430 stabilised, I moved to using it, and
have used a few generations of that compiler over the years.  I used
eclipse as the editor, and gdb (with eclipse's gui) for debugging - it
is a joy in comparison to IAR's tools.  The compiler has way more
features, generates good code, and you don't have to fight anyone (IAR,
company purchasing, etc.) about licenses, upgrades, etc. - install the
tools on as many systems as you want, regardless of OS, archive them
(when you have to resurrect a 10-year old project and re-compile with
the original tools, you will seriously regret ever buying locked
commercial tools).

For doing a new msp430 project (I rarely use them now), there would be
no doubt in my mind as to the tools.  It would be TI's eclipse IDE,
combined with the new gcc port that is fully supported by TI and Red
Hat.  I can't imagine why someone would want to work on an assembly-only
project these days, except perhaps for fun.  gcc will generate better
code than most assembler programmers in many circumstances - assuming
the code has to be written in a clear, understandable, safe,
maintainable manner.  There can be occasions when a particular small
snippet is best written in assembly - the inline assembler is usually
the best answer, but of course it is possible to write external assembly
functions if you really must.


David



On 12/01/16 03:24, 'Peter Grey' [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

>  
>
> Hi Jon, Al
>
> I may be a little off topic here. Like yourselves I have used IAR and
> assembler for many years. I like the thought of using both assembler and C
> so I can use existing software and also use some of the advantages of C. I
> started to have a look at CCS6 as I thought I would have to buy a copy of
> IAR for the use of C. I only see one document on the TI website that refers
> to mixing C and assembler and it is quite old. Do you have any references to
> any other documentation on mixing the 2 and using IAR?
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 5:29 AM
> To: MSP430 List
> Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
>
>>I Totally agree with Jon.
>
> :)
>
>>IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything I want, is unlimited, is
>>free, and since I don't use any libraries from third parties there are
>>no royalty issues.
>
> That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT of assemblers
> in my life and have written a few, as well.
> This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros usually get. The
> abstract segmentation model is great. The macro facility could be better,
> but I consider it "good enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some
> other tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
> Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be fruitfully
> used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet, since IAR's capabilities are
> good enough for now.)
>
>>The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.
>
> It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very capable as you
> advance further over time. It just wears well over time. They've done a very
> good job on its design. And, fortunately for some of us, have decided to
> offer a fully functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
> I'm in debt to them for this fact.
>
> (I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed more than an
> additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430 project, so the KickStart
> has been "good enough" for all my project uses so far.)
>
>>It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have been cleaned
>>up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid them!
>
> I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found things that took a
> moment to consider before I fully understood them. But once I gathered up
> the conceptual model they made good sense to me.
>
> The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with their toolset.
> For example, I needed a way to find the largest common divisor for a pair of
> configuration parameters to help me set up a clocking system that would
> serve two purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in their
> operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that, too. Worked
> perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see "strange" there, I suppose.
> But that's my fault, not IARs!
>
>>I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of assemblers
>>I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
>
> That's pretty much my feeling, too.
>
>>Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>>because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>>always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff
>>that I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an
>>original version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.
>
> Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps, because I
> haven't done as much as you have and haven't reached a situation where the
> trouble would have been worth it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to
> change standard facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
> rather use an additional file I create and add it to the inclusion list. But
> again, you probably have a wider array of usages than I do and I may very
> well have made similar choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
>
> Jon
>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Al
>>
>>On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>> Just as an additional note...
>>>
>>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for the
>>> MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's Kickstart
>>> tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and does NOT have any
>>> code size limitations at all. See:
>>>
>>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_pac
>>> kages.html
>>>
>>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The IAR
>>> Assembler delivered is the full version without any restrictions" and
>>> the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK Linker will link ... an
>>> unlimited amount of code originating from assembly code." (The 4th
>>> bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in
>>> the amount of assembly code read.") This pretty much means you get an
>>> excellent assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for assembly
>>> coding development and I really like the tools a lot, as they present
>>> a very clean, orthogonal design with all the features you need. Other
>>> assembler tools I've used, off and on, tend to have odd "limitations"
>>> which are frustrating at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never
>>> wished for a feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler
>>> + linker toolset.
>>>
>>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free Kickstart
>>> version does limit your final application size.
>>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code sizes. If you
>>> do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on developing larger
>>> applications then you should consider other tools for a cost/benefit
>>> analysis. A starting point might be TI's page here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_so
>>> ftware.page
>>>
>>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your options.
>>> Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples that you don't see
>>> there:
>>>
>>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in the TI
>>> page.
>>>
>>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to make your
>>> own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding styles. Whatever
>>> makes you happy works just fine.
>>>
>>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you need to
>>> be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well as compiler
>>> generated output) for the tools you apply. I believe you can use the
>>> IAR assembler/linker toolchain for commercial products without paying
>>> them a fee, so long as you are careful about library use (not using
>>> any library other than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like
>>> you might be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>>
>>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to support
>>> mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the widest range of
>>> options available for their project development so that the overall
>>> development process can be optimized for them, weighing all
>>> conditions appropriate to their circumstances. You should then
>>> carefully study the various commercial options. But you should ALSO
>>> contact the vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get
>>> a feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy their
>>> tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I think. But it
>>> helps to make contact and see how things play out before making a
>>> final decision and spending your money.
>>>
>>> As an employee in an organization with more than one programmer,
>>> which does NOT sound like your situation, you do what has been
>>> established by careful consideration of your team members. If you are
>>> a sole employee, then I suppose you get to make your own choices but
>>> you need to make them well for those depending on you.
>>>
>>> Jon
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Wow, Thanks for all the replies!

I ended up with NakenAsm because it was the first one I tried that
worked for me on Ubuntu. Just run from a terminal.

Back in the 'old days' I wrote two structured assemblers myself, for
6809 and 680x0. Among other features, branches could be structured to
eliminate most labels, and you could group instructions on a line
(separated by ";") to improve readability. Quick example, self
explanatory I hope:

test D1; SkipCS  |BCS to end brace (BCS on 68K = JCS on MSP)
{
  whatever
  whatever more
  dec D0; loopNE  |BNE to start brace
}

There were some other features too. Eg:

move.w Table(A6),A0

  could also be written as:

A0.w = Table(A6)

I have too many things to do to duplicate this work for MSP, but it
made writing in Asm far easier.

---

Originally the Easter Egg I was looking for was TimerA examples to
generate 3 different frequencies of varying pulse widths, reloading
the next ON or OFF time period for each in an ISR. The TAIV
"interrupt vector" register seemed to only have TACCR1 and TACCR2 but
not TACCR0. Now I think I see how that works - there seems to be a
whole separate interrupt vector for TACCR0, at FFF2 (TA0) or FFFA
(TA1) instead of FFF0 or FFF8 for all other timer interrupts.

So theoretically now all I really need is to find the time to write
several routines and hook up the hardware! It would still be nice to
find that page, but you've given me some starting points, thanks.

Craig

=====

>I have a very old document from 2001 with various notes and examples
>in assembler, called APP_14306. there are loads of other app notes
>(mostly older) that are in assembler, there are alos lots of files
>posted on the yahoo group in assembler. What specifically are you
>looking for? To learn assembler, a specific app note etc. I write
>almost exclusively in assembler for most micros, including the
>MSP430, but that seems to be rare enough for most manuafacturers,
>including Ti to have stopped supporting the use of assembler in
>their app notes.
>
>Al
>
>On 10/01/2016 5:17 PM, Craig Carmichael
><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
>>dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
>>source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
>>16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
>>had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
>>bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
>>is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Craig
>>http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/
>>
>>
>>http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
>>project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).

=====
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Of course I disagree regarding many things , but won't get into the old
argument of C vs assembler. i write in assembler, I have done for tens
of years. i've also written in most other languages at various times,
but generally come back to assembler for embedded systems for many reasons.

regarding IAR's tools, I think they are excellent for a free tool that
is used for assembler. I haven't tried them on C for the MSP430 since
probably 1999. I'm not looking for anything fancy in an assembler, one
reason I like assembler is that it's clean, simple and efficient. The
debugger isn't bad, but here I compare it to stuff like the old HC11 ICE
tools, or the ADSP ICE tools, thousands of dollars and often barely
functional. Then, I'm probably strange. I once used a lot of PIC micros
and actually liked MPLAB.  I have no doubt that modern compilers are
quite efficient, but I would still rather trust my own coding abilities
than rely on more layer(s) of potential bugs and/or inefficiency.

Finally I was not always a big fan of IAR, in fact for a long time I
used to give them hell in this group, but I think they finally got a lot
of things squared away, and deserve a little praise for still supporting
a free tool that must have a negative return for them. I dislike CCS
intensely (or did last time I tried it) and see no point paying a chunk
of money for an assembler when I can get one for free.

Al

On 12/01/2016 7:34 PM, David Brown [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> It's a long time since I have posted in this group, and I know I am at
> odds with other opinions here - but it is perhaps good to have a balance
> to the endless praise of IAR.
>
> When I started using msp430's, IAR was the only option.  Other tool
> vendors (free, cheap or expense) had to fight with TI to get any
> information or support.  So like everyone else who didn't want to pay
> huge prices for IAR's C compiler, I used IAR's assembler and IDE.
>
> It is perhaps a decade since I have used this combination, so things may
> have changed - but I doubt if they have changed significantly for a free
> tool from IAR that is little used, and where the market for the paid
> version (their C compiler) of this target is very much on the decline.
>
>
> The assembler is okay.  It is not "excellent", it's just okay.  It is
> fairly simple, and does not have particularly advanced features - it is
> simply a straightforward assembler.  Often that is all you want from an
> assembler - it was certainly enough for me to write my code.  But it is
> nothing special, and has no outstanding or exciting additional features.
>   I have used worse, and used better, but usually assembly code has a
> simple structure and the IAR assembler handled that fine.
>
> I did not like the IDE (note again that it is something around a decade
> since I used it - the IDE may have changed since then).  I used my own
> makefiles, and a different editor.  I used the debugger sometimes, but
> always felt it was awkward and that assembly was very much a
> second-class citizen to the debugger.  In fact, I felt that some aspects
> of the debugger (especially trying to view registers and expressions)
> were intentionally bad - almost to the point of trying to persuade
> people to buy the C compiler just to get decent debugging.  In practice,
> most of my work was done without using the IDE or debugger at all.
>
>
> When the early gcc port for msp430 stabilised, I moved to using it, and
> have used a few generations of that compiler over the years.  I used
> eclipse as the editor, and gdb (with eclipse's gui) for debugging - it
> is a joy in comparison to IAR's tools.  The compiler has way more
> features, generates good code, and you don't have to fight anyone (IAR,
> company purchasing, etc.) about licenses, upgrades, etc. - install the
> tools on as many systems as you want, regardless of OS, archive them
> (when you have to resurrect a 10-year old project and re-compile with
> the original tools, you will seriously regret ever buying locked
> commercial tools).
>
> For doing a new msp430 project (I rarely use them now), there would be
> no doubt in my mind as to the tools.  It would be TI's eclipse IDE,
> combined with the new gcc port that is fully supported by TI and Red
> Hat.  I can't imagine why someone would want to work on an assembly-only
> project these days, except perhaps for fun.  gcc will generate better
> code than most assembler programmers in many circumstances - assuming
> the code has to be written in a clear, understandable, safe,
> maintainable manner.  There can be occasions when a particular small
> snippet is best written in assembly - the inline assembler is usually
> the best answer, but of course it is possible to write external assembly
> functions if you really must.
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 12/01/16 03:24, 'Peter Grey' [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>  
>>
>> Hi Jon, Al
>>
>> I may be a little off topic here. Like yourselves I have used IAR and
>> assembler for many years. I like the thought of using both assembler and C
>> so I can use existing software and also use some of the advantages of C. I
>> started to have a look at CCS6 as I thought I would have to buy a copy of
>> IAR for the use of C. I only see one document on the TI website that refers
>> to mixing C and assembler and it is quite old. Do you have any references to
>> any other documentation on mixing the 2 and using IAR?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January 2016 5:29 AM
>> To: MSP430 List
>> Subject: Re: [msp430] Asm source code page?
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:33:47 +1030, Al wrote:
>>
>>> I Totally agree with Jon.
>> :)
>>
>>> IAR's assembler is excellent, does everything I want, is unlimited, is
>>> free, and since I don't use any libraries from third parties there are
>>> no royalty issues.
>> That assembler and linker tool-pair is good. I've used a LOT of assemblers
>> in my life and have written a few, as well.
>> This one from IAR is about as good as assemblers for micros usually get. The
>> abstract segmentation model is great. The macro facility could be better,
>> but I consider it "good enough for most things." (I can also use M4 or some
>> other tool on the source where I feel there are some limitations.
>> Such tools won't be fluent with the semantics but they may be fruitfully
>> used. I just haven't felt enough of a need yet, since IAR's capabilities are
>> good enough for now.)
>>
>>> The IDE is straightforward, and quite good.
>> It's remarkably easy to get started using and remains very capable as you
>> advance further over time. It just wears well over time. They've done a very
>> good job on its design. And, fortunately for some of us, have decided to
>> offer a fully functional toolset for assembler programmers at no charge.
>> I'm in debt to them for this fact.
>>
>> (I'm also in debt for another reason -- I've never needed more than an
>> additional 4k of C generated code for an MSP430 project, so the KickStart
>> has been "good enough" for all my project uses so far.)
>>
>>> It used to do some strange things, but they seem to have been cleaned
>>> up over the years, either that or I subconsciously avoid them!
>> I haven't found anything that was "strange." I have found things that took a
>> moment to consider before I fully understood them. But once I gathered up
>> the conceptual model they made good sense to me.
>>
>> The only "strange" things are things I've done myself with their toolset.
>> For example, I needed a way to find the largest common divisor for a pair of
>> configuration parameters to help me set up a clocking system that would
>> serve two purposes at once with only integer multiplier differences in their
>> operation. I hacked up a MACRO tool to do exactly that, too. Worked
>> perfectly. Now, someone looking at it would see "strange" there, I suppose.
>> But that's my fault, not IARs!
>>
>>> I find the syntax is more in line with the vast majority of assemblers
>>> I've used over the last too many years, no strange things.
>> That's pretty much my feeling, too.
>>
>>> Their header files for each processor are also quite good, but large
>>> because they are general use for C, c++ and assembler, so I personally
>>> always clean out all the stuff I am unlikely to use, add some stuff
>>> that I personally like to use, and rename the file, so I have an
>>> original version incase I ever decide to mix assembly and C for example.
>> Hmm. So far, I've not bothered with that. In part, perhaps, because I
>> haven't done as much as you have and haven't reached a situation where the
>> trouble would have been worth it. In part, perhaps, because I tend not to
>> change standard facilities unless I can clearly justify the change. I'd
>> rather use an additional file I create and add it to the inclusion list. But
>> again, you probably have a wider array of usages than I do and I may very
>> well have made similar choices if I had faced similar situations, too.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2016 6:15 AM, Jon Kirwan [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:47:23 -0800, Craig Carmichael wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>>> Just as an additional note...
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in writing assembly-only projects for the
>>>> MSP430 and MSP430X families, I'd recommend using IAR's Kickstart
>>>> tools. Their assembler is quite general-purpose and does NOT have any
>>>> code size limitations at all. See:
>>>>
>>>> http://supp.iar.com/FilesPublic/UPDINFO/004578/infocenter/product_pac
>>>> kages.html
>>>>
>>>> where the 2nd bullet under the Kickstart heading says, "The IAR
>>>> Assembler delivered is the full version without any restrictions" and
>>>> the 3rd bullet expands, "The IAR XLINK Linker will link ... an
>>>> unlimited amount of code originating from assembly code." (The 4th
>>>> bullet adds, "The IAR KickStart C-SPY Simulator ... is unlimited in
>>>> the amount of assembly code read.") This pretty much means you get an
>>>> excellent assembler/linker toolset, plus a very nice IDE and debugger
>>>> for coding purposes and ZERO cost to you. I've used IAR for assembly
>>>> coding development and I really like the tools a lot, as they present
>>>> a very clean, orthogonal design with all the features you need. Other
>>>> assembler tools I've used, off and on, tend to have odd "limitations"
>>>> which are frustrating at times. IAR's tools "just work well." Never
>>>> wished for a feature that I couldn't already find in IAR's assembler
>>>> + linker toolset.
>>>>
>>>> You can also explore C/C++ with IAR's tools, but the free Kickstart
>>>> version does limit your final application size.
>>>> IAR asks a "fairly high price" for unlimited C/C++ code sizes. If you
>>>> do plan on mixing C and assembly and plan on developing larger
>>>> applications then you should consider other tools for a cost/benefit
>>>> analysis. A starting point might be TI's page here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/microcontrollers_16-bit_32-bit/msp/tools_so
>>>> ftware.page
>>>>
>>>> However, be aware that this page in no way provides all your options.
>>>> Rowley and ImageCraft are just two such examples that you don't see
>>>> there:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/
>>>> https://www.imagecraft.com/devtools_MSP430.html
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are others, as well, that aren't included in the TI
>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> If you are doing this all as a hobby, then you are free to make your
>>>> own choices about assembly-only or mixed coding styles. Whatever
>>>> makes you happy works just fine.
>>>>
>>>> If you have your own product/product-line in mind, then you need to
>>>> be aware of licensing issues (libraries used, as well as compiler
>>>> generated output) for the tools you apply. I believe you can use the
>>>> IAR assembler/linker toolchain for commercial products without paying
>>>> them a fee, so long as you are careful about library use (not using
>>>> any library other than public domain would be safer.) It sounds like
>>>> you might be in this frame of mind, but it is hard to tell.
>>>>
>>>> For professional contract work, you will want to be able to support
>>>> mixed assembly and C/C++. Clients deserve to have the widest range of
>>>> options available for their project development so that the overall
>>>> development process can be optimized for them, weighing all
>>>> conditions appropriate to their circumstances. You should then
>>>> carefully study the various commercial options. But you should ALSO
>>>> contact the vendors, too, and speak or write to a human there and get
>>>> a feel for what contact and support will be like after you buy their
>>>> tools. Most MSP430 vendors should be pretty good, I think. But it
>>>> helps to make contact and see how things play out before making a
>>>> final decision and spending your money.
>>>>
>>>> As an employee in an organization with more than one programmer,
>>>> which does NOT sound like your situation, you do what has been
>>>> established by careful consideration of your team members. If you are
>>>> a sole employee, then I suppose you get to make your own choices but
>>>> you need to make them well for those depending on you.
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: David Brown <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asm source code page?

MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
In reply to this post by MSP430 - Discuss mailing list
Depending on the micro TIMER A has between 2 and 5 channels and the
following interrupts available:_

overflow interrupt
TimerA0 interrupt
Generic interrupt for remaining 1-4 channels

Interrupt addresses may vary slightly between micros

Al

On 12/01/2016 8:08 PM, Craig Carmichael [hidden email] [msp430] wrote:

> Wow, Thanks for all the replies!
>
> I ended up with NakenAsm because it was the first one I tried that
> worked for me on Ubuntu. Just run from a terminal.
>
> Back in the 'old days' I wrote two structured assemblers myself, for
> 6809 and 680x0. Among other features, branches could be structured to
> eliminate most labels, and you could group instructions on a line
> (separated by ";") to improve readability. Quick example, self
> explanatory I hope:
>
> test D1; SkipCS  |BCS to end brace (BCS on 68K = JCS on MSP)
> {
>    whatever
>    whatever more
>    dec D0; loopNE  |BNE to start brace
> }
>
> There were some other features too. Eg:
>
> move.w Table(A6),A0
>
>    could also be written as:
>
> A0.w = Table(A6)
>
> I have too many things to do to duplicate this work for MSP, but it
> made writing in Asm far easier.
>
> ---
>
> Originally the Easter Egg I was looking for was TimerA examples to
> generate 3 different frequencies of varying pulse widths, reloading
> the next ON or OFF time period for each in an ISR. The TAIV
> "interrupt vector" register seemed to only have TACCR1 and TACCR2 but
> not TACCR0. Now I think I see how that works - there seems to be a
> whole separate interrupt vector for TACCR0, at FFF2 (TA0) or FFFA
> (TA1) instead of FFF0 or FFF8 for all other timer interrupts.
>
> So theoretically now all I really need is to find the time to write
> several routines and hook up the hardware! It would still be nice to
> find that page, but you've given me some starting points, thanks.
>
> Craig
>
> =====
>
>> I have a very old document from 2001 with various notes and examples
>> in assembler, called APP_14306. there are loads of other app notes
>> (mostly older) that are in assembler, there are alos lots of files
>> posted on the yahoo group in assembler. What specifically are you
>> looking for? To learn assembler, a specific app note etc. I write
>> almost exclusively in assembler for most micros, including the
>> MSP430, but that seems to be rare enough for most manuafacturers,
>> including Ti to have stopped supporting the use of assembler in
>> their app notes.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 10/01/2016 5:17 PM, Craig Carmichael
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email] [msp430] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> In summer 2013 I found a web page full of what I remember as being
>>> dozens of MSP430 assembly source code files, probably all open
>>> source. I believe it was on a TI page. I downloaded and used the
>>> 16x16->32 bit multiply and 32/16 bit divide routines, and I thought I
>>> had carefully bookmarked this very special page. Now I can't find the
>>> bookmark, or the page in hours of searching. Anybody know where it
>>> is, or have any other ideas for web pages of sample code in Asm?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Craig
>>> http://www.TurquoiseEnergy.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.saers.com/recorder/craig/TENewsV2/ - Radiant energy
>>> project with MSP430G2553, issues #94, #95 (#96 next).
> =====
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Craig Carmichael <[hidden email]>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the msp430 group, send an email to:
> [hidden email]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

123