I recently inherited a pile of software from another division. The code was developed several years ago using only DOS. I am curious to know if I will hurt myself in anyway by using the GUI IDE. uvision 1.13 The files were originally developed using ver 4 of the compiler, L51, and Symantec smake. Additionally, where could I look to find info on smake? I do appreciate any suggestions....
If you're going to move to the GUI IDE, it seems silly to move to an out-of-date version; If you're going to make the move anyway, you might as well take the chance to get up-to-date. The latest Official version of the compiler is 6.10, and uVision v2.10 (not so sure about the uVision version). Eval versions on the free CD. Note that the compiler, assembler, linker, erc are the same whether you drive them from the IDE or from the command line. Have you tried Symantec's website for their smake!? You could try the help for IBM's AIX make at: http://www.rs6000.ibm.com/doc_link/en_US/a_doc_lib/cmds/aixcmds3/make.htm Or GNU make at: http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/make/make_toc.html Moving to the IDE would (probably) obviate the need for make
What I was curious about was why some people on this forum were still using make files and DOS. I couldn't see any perfomance related reason why not to use the GUI. And, I'm stuck with the old uvision until our bearaucracy figures out how to order an upgrade. Are there any issues with the old GUI that could cause me grief? Thanks again....
On WinNT and 2000 it's not DOS, it's a full 32-bit console without filename limitations. Make is easy to use and allows one to call it from CodeWright (a very good Windows editor) and then parse any build errors within the editor. Why? Because the editor in uVision is weak compared to something like CodeWright. I do use uVision for builds but I use CodeWright to call C51.exe for compilation checks. I make uVision just big enough to see the Build button and the output of the build. It is my "make" utility only, I never use it for editing.
"On WinNT and 2000" and Win9x - so that'd be a problem if you need 16-bit? "the editor in uVision is weak" true, but then it's probably as well that Keil concentrate on their Core Competence (Compilers, etc) rather than re-invent the Editor wheel (which is extremely well developed in the likes of CodeWright). "it [uVision] is my "make" utility only, I never use it for editing." do you use it for debugging?
"What I was curious about was why some people on this forum were still using make files and DOS." I know people who still prefer vi to the likes of CodeWright; and then there's the ones who prefer to write HTML in Notepad...
No, I don't use it for debugging. I use my Signum Systems' USP-51 ICE. Don't hate me because I'm well tooled. :-) - Mark
One point the previous replys miss is the optimzation improvement in uvision. C51 DOS optimizes across modules with many intermediate files. Ever have your system hang and leave a jillion files in your project directory? uvison is true WIN32 which means you can use ALL of memory and virtual memory to optimize across the entire project build. Both code speed and size is greatly improved. If you still have uv51 running, build a medimum size project and then build the same project in uvision2.
Yes, I believe it's all 32-bit now - including the command-line tools C51.exe, A51.exe, etc. So even if you don't use uVision as your front-end, you still escape all those old MS-DOS limitations.