search for: crossworks

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "crossworks".

2007 Mar 19
1
Problem with LPT port (crossworks)
Hi I've problem when installing Crossworks. The install program says that: "The installayion of the Wiggler Device Driver for ARM component has failed. Cannot start ARMD Wiggler 1.9 : Overlapped I/O pending." Wiggler is the device connected do paralell port. I think, sth is wrong with the mentioned I/O of the LPT. What could I d...
2009 Oct 02
0
[LLVMdev] Mailing list for out-of-band MSP430 backend discussion
...to target MSP430 microcontrollers. Anton wrote an MSP430 backend as an exercise, and some of the nastiest parts are done (thanks Anton!), but the consensus seems to be that there's still quite a bit of work left to do before LLVM can replace the commercial and open-source compilers (IAR, CCE, CrossWorks, mspgcc, and so on) that people use. I've created a mailing list where we can have graphic, detailed discussions of the MSP430 and its LLVM backend. Feel free to subscribe for discussion and/or lurking. http://lists.ransford.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-msp430 We'll try to redirect quest...
2006 Mar 28
0
ARM7 decode resource requirements
...ech). I have been told there is some floating point in the wideband (from Jean-Marc) but since it runs for me have not done any more (plus the project is now on the backburner). I hope to test it on an Atmel AT91Sam7S256 part soon. (I have a eval board of each) I am using the GCC compiler in the CrossWorks toolset. I would be interest to hear how it all works out for you. I would also like to try the Tremor code on the Arm7 but have not got the chance yet. Good luck Tom On 3/28/06, Anderton, John <john.anderton@epson-electronics.de> wrote: > > > > Hi all > > I'm look...
2006 Mar 28
2
ARM7 decode resource requirements
Hi all I'm looking in to using speex for an ARM7 based speech decode development (note we need the decode only). My hope is that we should be able to run the decoder (in wideband mode) real time on the ARM7 (40MHz) without any problems (the difficulty would be in the encode - but we plan to run that offline on a PC - so we should be OK). Can anyone confirm that this is the case please? Also
2017 Mar 10
3
[cfe-dev] proposal - pragma section directive in clang
+llvm-dev properly this time. On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 09:42 James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Reid, all, > > +llvm-dev as this RFC involves changes in Clang and LLVM. > > This RFC has stagnated and I think that's partially because the proposal > isn't particularly elegant and is light on details. We've been having a > rethink and have a