Author Topic: Debugging with Segger JLINK  (Read 34881 times)

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
    • Travis build status
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2013, 07:53:27 pm »
http://www.emblocks.org
http://www.imagecraft.com
I don't think these two comply with the GPL-3 license we are using.
Can anyone who has tried them, tell me if they ship the source code of the IDE as required by the license?
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline Pecan

  • Plugin developer
  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2180
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2013, 01:54:01 pm »
ImageCraft does not charge for CB.
It only charges for its compilers (ARM.AVR)
The CB source is downloadable via link.

GPL does not state that the source has to be included with the object, only that "you must also provide them with a way to get the source."


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
Quote
One of the fundamental requirements of the GPL is that when you distribute object code to users, you must also provide them with a way to get the source. GPLv2 gave you a few ways to do this, and GPLv3 keeps those intact with some clarification. It also offers you new ways to provide source when you convey object code over a network. For instance, when you host object code on a web or FTP server, you can simply provide instructions that tell visitors how to get the source from a third-party server. Thanks to this new option, fulfilling this requirement should be easier for many small distributors who only make a few changes to large bodies of source.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 02:02:58 pm by Pecan »

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
    • Travis build status
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2013, 03:08:18 pm »
ImageCraft does not charge for CB.
It only charges for its compilers (ARM.AVR)
The CB source is downloadable via link.
Good, I've not seen the link, so I couldn't verify that they comply with the license.
Do they have any changes to C::B's code?

http://www.emblocks.org provides a single executable which I cannot run to see if they provide the source with it.
Can anyone who has used it tell me if this is the case?
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline Grad

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2013, 06:42:47 pm »
ImageCraft does not charge for CB.
It only charges for its compilers (ARM.AVR)
The CB source is downloadable via link.

GPL does not state that the source has to be included with the object, only that "you must also provide them with a way to get the source."


Yes, the same for EmBlocks accept it doesn't charge for anything.
There are links at the forum, but the code is still heavily under construction.

It's the same as here.

Because there are a lot of changes to make EmBlocks an embedded development suite (GDB, GCC, wxWidgets, STlink-gdb, etc) and it is still continuously changing so the best way to publish this is not fully clear right now.


Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
    • Travis build status
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2013, 11:56:04 pm »
Yes, the same for EmBlocks accept it doesn't charge for anything.
There are links at the forum, but the code is still heavily under construction.
GPL doesn't prevent charging, it prevents distributing binaries without the code.

Because there are a lot of changes to make EmBlocks an embedded development suite (GDB, GCC, wxWidgets, STlink-gdb, etc) and it is still continuously changing so the best way to publish this is not fully clear right now.
Why not use github.com or sf.com or anything similar? :)
This way people can see what is changing and can provide comments, patches, etc.

Why wxWidgets is related to embedded develoment?

Grad: are you a EmBlocks developer?
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline Grad

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2013, 07:20:23 am »
Why wxWidgets is related to embedded develoment?

It is not, well, ... it is equally related to embedded as desktop  :)

I have changed a lot of wxWidgets code on the MSW part but also generic. There were some annoying bugs (like in the statusbar handling of text) but I also freely added stuff or changed behaviour of it.
I didn't like, as an example, the handling of menus. Why different approach for a menu with checkboxes than with icon's? But the changes of wxWidgets also changed the rest of the code, different function calls etc etc.

The objectives are a little bit different here. The goal (mission statement is a bit heavy I guess) is to make an user friendly embedded development suite for windows. An embedded development suite without all kind of tweaks etc. Working out of the box with the same experiences as if you would use uVision (my favourite at that moment). Once started, almost 2 years ago, I came across all kind of problems. I first kept a list with changes or bugs that I found but that was not workable, I was more administrating than programming. So the end result became more important than the backward compatibility with the used components like e.g. wxWidgets or codeblocks.      

But EmBlocks is only suitable for embedded, it can't build desktop applications. All the desktop related stuff is removed from the source pool (like resource compiler, dynamic libraries etc). In the next release I will shrink it further by removing the 22px toolbar and the Batch/make file support. There is not much left of the original codeblocks code of 2 years ago and it is drifting further away with the day  ::)

Because it is a one man project, Github etc is at this moment a bit too much overhead. I have also a daytime job to do.

So yes, I wrote it.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 07:44:22 am by Grad »

Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
    • Travis build status
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2013, 08:14:38 am »
So you say that EmBlocks uses customized version of wxWidgets?

I'm interested in looking at the code, btw, some things might be worth to integrate back.
I might integrate your version of the Examine memory windows, for example, because it looks good.
The toolbars and the overall look of the IDE look cool in windows. Is this possible with vanilla wxwidgets?
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline Grad

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2013, 09:11:48 am »
So you say that EmBlocks uses customized version of wxWidgets?
The toolbars and the overall look of the IDE look cool in windows. Is this possible with vanilla wxwidgets?

Yes, the wxWidgets is heavily customized (like a lot of us do) which is allowed under the wxWindows license 3.1.
You may change the library and it is allowed to only provide the binaries so that gives space at the wxWidget part :).

You have to add styling to it and the MSW need additional low-level stuff.

I'm not familiar with vanilla, never heard of it.


Offline oBFusCATed

  • Developer
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
    • Travis build status
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2013, 09:26:16 am »
I'm not familiar with vanilla, never heard of it.
Vanilla means clean upstream version.
Modifying wxWidgets isn't fun in the longer run.

Still I'd like to see the sources. If you like to show them to me you can p.m. me with you e-mail and I can send you a message,
this is if you don't want to bother with putting them online for everyone (no matter that this is required by the license).
(most of the time I ignore long posts)
[strangers don't send me private messages, I'll ignore them; post a topic in the forum, but first read the rules!]

Offline Grad

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2013, 10:59:19 am »
No problem, I think it's better for now that you point out in which part you are interested in.
If it is using added wxWidget stuff, like the memory window, I could isolate that. Or I could help you with porting that part to code::blocks.

I think that you have my email (it was a part of the registration). I'm quite busy the next couple of weeks but after that I will have time.


Cheers



 




Offline Pecan

  • Plugin developer
  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2180
Re: Debugging with Segger JLINK
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2013, 02:44:00 pm »
ImageCraft does not charge for CB.
It only charges for its compilers (ARM.AVR)
The CB source is downloadable via link.
Good, I've not seen the link, so I couldn't verify that they comply with the license.
Do they have any changes to C::B's code?

http://www.emblocks.org provides a single executable which I cannot run to see if they provide the source with it.
Can anyone who has used it tell me if this is the case?

ImageCraft mods to CB consists mainly of directing events to their plugins which in-turn writes their own (additional) project file.
Then their compilers read their own project file.

Not too interesting.