On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 05:50:21PM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > Why? There are already software and programmers and bootloaders
> > for developing the dsPIC on Linux. Obviously as a 100% Linux
> > user, the ICD2 is completely out of my scope. So if you have
> > a minute, explain what does it bring to the table.
> 
> debugger!

As a gdb user I can appreciate a debugger to a point. I find that
simulators help with gross errors. But as a "love what you learn"
question, what does the debugger bring to the table that's outside
of the scope of "normal" debugging activities using I/O devices
such as serial interfaces and LCDs?

> 
> > > To provide C30 buidling insturction (without the
> > > close source optimizer) and packages will be another
> > > good thing to do. 
> > 
> > That's been done by someone else. You've posted the links
> > to it. MChip has been very very gracious in sticking to the 
> > GPL and releasing the source for C30.
> 
> No grace in that at all: if they use something that is GPLed they must
> follow the rules! It would be a violation of the copyright law if they
> did not.

True. But with so many entities being unscrupulous about following even
the letter of the law, it's still a good thing to see.

> 
> Rather, they followed the letter (relased the modified source of the
> part they used) but violated the spirit (they made a product, of which a
> modified GCC is a part, and carefully separated the GPL-ed part from a
> closed-source part).
> 

Perfectly within their rights. You're talking about the optimizer then right?
If they wrote the optimizer from scratch as a value add, and that optimizer
is a separate entity from the compiler (which it clearly is), then more power
to them.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist