Porting a HC08 project from CW 3.1 to 5.x

[Kantalias]

Greetings,

My company is purchasing IP from a third party in the form C code (with a few timing-critical assembly routines) for the HC08. The original firm used CodeWarrior v3.1 to compile the project.

The compiled code occupies 30k of ROM and all 4k of the RAM on the HC08 MC9S08GB60.

I have a few related questions and would appreciate any help that can be offered on any one or all of them:

1. From what I've read, CW 3.1 can no longer be obtained, is this true?

2. Does the CW 5.x compiler have a CW 3.1 "compatibility mode" or something of the sort that would guarantee similarity between the CW 3.1 and 5.0 produced compiled code?

3. If I must get CW 5.x and there is no guarantee of backwards compatibility, am I facing several days of sorting out compiler errors for previously working code (best guess based on compiled size of the project)?

4. Considering every last byte of RAM has been used in the project, should I be concerned about the CW 5.x compiled code fitting on the device?

Thanks for reading my post...any response you can give would be greatly appreciated!

Justin

[peg]

Hi Justin,

1. From what I've read, CW 3.1 can no longer be obtained, is this true?

This appears to be the case as far as Freescale is concerned.

2. Does the CW 5.x compiler have a CW 3.1 "compatibility mode" or something of the sort that would guarantee similarity between the CW 3.1 and 5.0 produced compiled code?

Not really, but when it detects you trying to load a 3.1 project it offers to display a document that details all the things that you might have to look out for. I usually ignore it and forge ahead with very few (or no) issues. But I don't use CW for serious work.

3. If I must get CW 5.x and there is no guarantee of backwards compatibility, am I facing several days of sorting out compiler errors for previously working code (best guess based on compiled size of the project)?

Anywhere from several minutes to several days, but you could have a lot of this even with the same base version compiler just with plug-in, patches and settings anyway. Depends a lot on the previous programmer(s).

4. Considering every last byte of RAM has been used in the project, should I be concerned about the CW 5.x compiled code fitting on the device?

I would be concerned about this fact anyway. What happens if problems are discovered that need to be fixed or additional features incorporated? I would imagine that with this much RAM usage there would be some buffers or the like (stack?) that could be massaged down. Possibly they are that big "because it was there"

Regards David

[Kantalias]

David,

Thanks for your response. A few quick follow-ups --

---

peg wrote:


2. Does the CW 5.x compiler have a CW 3.1 "compatibility mode" or something of the sort that would guarantee similarity between the CW 3.1 and 5.0 produced compiled code?

Not really, but when it detects you trying to load a 3.1 project it offers to display a document that details all the things that you might have to look out for. I usually ignore it and forge ahead with very few (or no) issues. But I don't use CW for serious work.

Interesting...this was one of the issues we were concerned about with CW. Out of curiousit, what's your personal favorite (when do serious work)?

4. Considering every last byte of RAM has been used in the project, should I be concerned about the CW 5.x compiled code fitting on the device?

I would be concerned about this fact anyway. What happens if problems are discovered that need to be fixed or additional features incorporated? I would imagine that with this much RAM usage there would be some buffers or the like (stack?) that could be massaged down. Possibly they are that big "because it was there"

Regards David

---

A fair and just point. Of course, I haven't seen the code so the third party may be exaggerating. Fat trimming and debugging will surely be in order once we have this half baked solution in house, but our hope is to be able to get to the level of functionality the third party has presently achieved without a tremendous amount of head ache.

Justin

[peg · Accepted solution]

Hi Justin,

I thought you might take that comment wrongly. I only programme my actual money making projects in assembler and use P&E Micro's tools for this. Using CW in IDE mode to programme in assembler is a bit like using Microsoft Word for a job that can be done adequately with Notepad. I have only used CW (and C) to do a few "side projects" like zigbee evaluation etc which all the examples and libraries etc are all in C. Next time I start something from scratch I may use CW in command line mode for assembly.

If you are going to programme in C especially on freescale devices I think CW is the only way to go. People that disagree are probably veiwing this on their Apple computer before going off to watch a movie on their betamax video player mumbling something about technical superiority.

Regards David

[Kantalias]

Got it.  Thanks for taking the time to write your reponses.  Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Justin