Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 14:34 UTC
General Development

In Visual Studio 2017 15.5 Preview 2 we are introducing support for cross compilation targeting ARM microcontrollers. To enable this in the installation choose the Linux development with C++ workload and select the option for Embedded and IoT Development. This adds the ARM GCC cross compilation tools and Make to your installation.

Our cross compilation support uses our Open Folder capabilities so there is no project system involved. We are using the same JSON configuration files from other Open Folder scenarios and have added additional options to support the toolchains introduced here. We hope that this provides flexibility for many styles of embedded development. The best way to get started with this and understand the capabilities is with a project exported from the ARM mbed online compiler. We'll cover the basics here, to learn more about the online compiler see ARM’s tutorials, and you can sign up for an account here.

Order by: Score:
Bit late for Windows RT
by Adurbe on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 15:01 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

With Windows RT and Mobile dead, what is the ARM market they want to exploit?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bit late for Windows RT
by gus3 on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 15:32 UTC in reply to "Bit late for Windows RT"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

Because they've released Windows 10 for the Raspberry Pi. More generally, it's a push into IoT infrastructure.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Bit late for Windows RT
by ssokolow on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 15:32 UTC in reply to "Bit late for Windows RT"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

They probably want to keep Visual Studio a relevant brand with native Windows application development shrinking relative to web and mobile applications.

(ie. If you primarily develop web and mobile apps, why would you bother with a "native+web-only" IDE if some other IDE does web+mobile?)

Edited 2017-11-03 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Curious question
by ameasures on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 15:55 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

Would have expected to see a LLVM based compiler rather than the GCC option (that even OpenBSD regards as old fashioned).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Curious question
by tidux on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 16:46 UTC in reply to "Curious question"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

OpenBSD isn't dropping GCC out of performance reasons but because of crippling license autism. GCC outperforms LLVM/Clang and quite likely always will.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Curious question
by FortranMan on Sat 4th Nov 2017 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Curious question"
FortranMan Member since:
2011-12-21

I'm pretty sure that you can come up with a more descriptive and less hateful phrase than "license autism."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Curious question
by tidux on Sat 4th Nov 2017 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Curious question"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

The derison was part of the accuracy of the description. They're forfeiting significant performance and in some cases having to drop architectures entirely all because of some irrational fear of the GPLv3.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Curious question
by Sauron on Sat 4th Nov 2017 07:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Curious question"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

The derison was part of the accuracy of the description. They're forfeiting significant performance and in some cases having to drop architectures entirely all because of some irrational fear of the GPLv3.


Irrational to you perhaps, obviously not to them! And to be fair there is plenty of projects out there that are also keeping clear of GPLv3 and staying with GPLv2. Each to their own.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Curious question
by Brendan on Sat 4th Nov 2017 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Curious question"
RE[5]: Curious question
by tylerdurden on Sat 4th Nov 2017 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Curious question"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You're also behind the times regarding GCC, they've rewritten and update a lot of the toolchain/backend. LOL

Basically they're both now neck to neck. But at the end of the day, gcc still has a bigger library of optimizations. Whereas LLVM is a cleaner/saner base to target a new compiler/language.


What I think it's remarkable how damn good both opensource projects are. They basically put to shame some expensive commercial offerings.

Reply Score: 10

RE[6]: Curious question
by Kochise on Sat 4th Nov 2017 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Curious question"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Only to consider later that private companies paid their tribute by contributing a large amount of the code base.

Edited 2017-11-04 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Curious question
by tylerdurden on Sun 5th Nov 2017 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Curious question"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

There's lots of involvement from all sorts of institutions and individuals in both projects, from private for profit companies, to unpaid volunteers.

But the point of note is that both projects produce great tools that are both opensource and free.

I think it's a fantastic achievement, to have lowered the barriers of entry to programming to such levels, if you consider how much a crappy compiler used to cost a while back.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Curious question
by Brendan on Sun 5th Nov 2017 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Curious question"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

You're also behind the times regarding GCC, they've rewritten and update a lot of the toolchain/backend. LOL

Basically they're both now neck to neck. But at the end of the day, gcc still has a bigger library of optimizations. Whereas LLVM is a cleaner/saner base to target a new compiler/language.


The comment I replied to claimed "forfeiting significant performance".

Unless you think "neck and neck" is the same as "significant performance difference" you are agreeing with me.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Curious question
by tylerdurden on Sun 5th Nov 2017 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Curious question"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You could also have noted I was pointing out that you are out of the loop with regards to the state of gcc's "rotten code."


Cheers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Curious question
by FortranMan on Sun 5th Nov 2017 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Curious question"
FortranMan Member since:
2011-12-21

Looks like I've missed much of the conversation here, but the derision I was talking about had nothing to do with objections to licenses and everything to do with using the term 'autistic' as a pejorative. Autism spectrum disorder is a complex, real, and painful phenomenon for those affected by it, and your use of the term is really quite insensitive and borders on hateful. Next time you want to imply that people are acting over fussy about license issues, maybe you should just call them pedantic, or over-zealous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Curious question
by orfanum on Sun 5th Nov 2017 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Curious question"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I am sorry but I am getting really tired of the thought police. I used to work in social care; there were several changes of terminology while I was employed in that area, each time apparently reflecting a more enlightened view of those I was caring for, assisting, and helping to lead independent lives.

What I noticed was those who had the right attitude to begin with, continued to have the right and respectful attitude. Those that did not possess this faculty did not gain it by being forced to use different terminology.

But this present mania about language means that small, vociferous, self-selecting and solipsistic minorities presume to adjudicate and in the end dictate how others think and can express themselves. There is neither rationality nor objectivity to it.

Calling someone a pedant is also negative, it is just that there is no activist group of agitating, in-group fixating pedants with a political platform and self-selecting agenda to object.

Orf.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Curious question
by jmorgannz on Sun 5th Nov 2017 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Curious question"
jmorgannz Member since:
2017-11-05

No,
He is right. Using autist in this way shows a lack of individual thought.
It's targeting a group affected by a disorder based on a stereotypical preconception that has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

Try addressing the behavior you are trying to highlight, not a medical disorder.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Curious question
by jmorgannz on Sun 5th Nov 2017 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Curious question"
jmorgannz Member since:
2017-11-05

Sorry, I mistakenly thought that orfanum and tidux were the same person.
My reply was to orfanum not tidux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Curious question
by Soulbender on Sun 5th Nov 2017 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Curious question"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I see that like the Linux community's irrational fear of commercial licences?

Reply Score: 3

ThomasFuhringer
Member since:
2007-01-25

Would be interesting how practical it is now to do bare metal programming on the Rasperry Pi using (the free version of) Visual Studio.

Reply Score: 3

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You can already using VisualGDB.

Reply Score: 4