Author Topic: Installing Code::Blocks Windows XP SP3  (Read 16514 times)

Offline Tim

  • Multiple posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Installing Code::Blocks Windows XP SP3
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2021, 10:03:53 am »
Hi Andrew,

I appreciate you taking the time looking into this issue. I looked at my msvcrt.dll ver and it's
the same version, not surprising really as I also got my latest XP iso's from

There's a certain "Karma" going on for me over the "XP x64" issue. I use XP "just because",
but I have only been using the x64 version for 6 months because I appear to have picked up
some sort of 'malware' (Eating up cpu cycles)  in one of my app's which I have not been able
to get to the bottom of. So I switched to x64 in the hope the 'malware' would not be able to
run under x64 and luckily it doesn't. If and when I feel the urge I will try and find out which
apps the 'malware' resides in and kill it off, and go back to XP-32bit.
So "XP x64" limitations have saved my bacon over the malware issue, so to complain about
those same limitations would be very churlish of me. I think I picked up the infection while
searching for cpld & fpga software license keys on some Russian & Chinese sites.

"Virtualbox" I've only tried it once but failed due to windows versions not being specified prior to
downloading the software. After waiting an hour for a download only to be told I need to
"upgrade my OS" I lost interest. That said, I partition my drives with multiple primaries,
and at present use "bootus" in the mbr for system selection. I use win2K permanently on one
partition for OS management. (format & copy systems to and from different partitions) It takes
2-3 minutes to format and copy a new XP system on to a partition. I've been doing this sort of
thing since 1997 but then used IBM's OS2 bootloader for system selection.

A year ago I tried Codeblocks with a Win32 GUI project and after I had found out about
ResEdit, I was amazed how easy it all seemed, especially since I haven't really done any
windows programming since 2005 when I was using MSVC6. This unexpectedly pleasant
experience has been in the back of my mind when I've been using Eclipse for playing
around with STM32 programming. I'm sure you can imagine that using Eclipse on my Intel
socket 775 Q6700 running XP is like going for a walk with bags of sand tied to my feet.
With this in mind I decided it was time I found out why I've not seen any STM32 development
going on with Codeblocks.

Now after 3 days of reading posts, gnu and JLink pdf's I think I'm starting to understand the
reasons for the lack of open source STM32 development. It seems to me that the skill-set
needed is soo wide that anyone having the full set will probably be considered by polite
society to be "Mad as a Hatter". That said if I think I have anything useful to say on the
subject I'll start a new topic thread.

One thing I can say is that if I had read "UM08001_JLink.pdf" first, I would have saved
me a lot of time as it gave me a very lucid overview of the real world debug procedure,
which put the gnu tools and forum posts into context.


Offline AndrewCot

  • Plugin developer
  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: Installing Code::Blocks Windows XP SP3
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2021, 11:09:59 am »

Embedded systems development is easy if things work, but are f***ing hard as h**l if something does not want to play ball. I know all about it, I have done embedded systems on 8051, I80960 (a risc based CPU from intel 25 yrs ago), I386EX (16 bit) and AMD Elan 410 (486 32 bit) and lately Linux. Luckily the latest Linux was using SLD2 so I migrated the code base onto a real Linux OS and also MS VS2017 and C:B using MSYS2 after writing peripheral simulators.

If you can move the STm32 app onto Linux where you simulate the hardware it will make your life so much easier. For NVRAM malloc it and load/save it to a file on startup or shutdown or when you request it.

A for upgrading your PC check out the AMD 5 5600G or AND 7 5700G that was released last Thursday. I ordered on Friday a new PC with the 5700G in it that I should get in the middle of the week from a local computer store. I find VirtualBox acceptable if you give it say 4 or 8GM and 4 CPU's when running Linux or Windows. I have used it with 1Gb and 1 CPU and it was way too slow....

Some pages that may help you with C::B and STM32:

So it looks like other people have enhanced their C:B version for STM32 usage, but as far as I can see none of it has made it into the C::B mainline source tree.