Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39697
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? |
| Date | 2015-06-11 05:33 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mlbkj4$cla$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <87mw07tpta.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <ml9uu8$ug1$1@dont-email.me> <87fv5yuaa1.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <e75fe324-6055-4952-b66a-cb688a359f0b@googlegroups.com> <b8cb736f-a0db-469a-83e6-f731884af553@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/11/2015 4:24 AM, Raimond Dragomir wrote: > joi, 11 iunie 2015, 10:40:36 UTC+3, djc a scris: >> Am Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2015 06:41:27 UTC+2 schrieb Paul Rubin: >>> rickman writes: >>>>> Not sure what an MSP56xx is and wasn't able to quickly figure it out. >>>> I think he means DSP56xxx. The DSP56K line were Motorola's entry into >>>> the DSP market. >>> >>> Oh ok, that makes sense. The 56k series was cool in the 1990's but I >>> think they're not used much any more, so it sounds like djc might be >>> using some very old development setups. 45 minutes to compile/link a >>> program that size is ridiculous these days. >> >> Lots of guesswork, huh? >> MSP != DSP and no, it is neither a mobile phone CPU nor a signal processor. >> The compilers were current and the hosts were mid-level office laptops, not top end. Make -j was used, the time relates to the full build, like make depend make boot, make application, link and flash. >> >> And - need I say it again: I do not claim is good to work like that. >> >> Daniel > > So, it's probably a MPC56xx, isn't it? Ah, found it... "The Qorivva MPC56xx family of 32-bit MCUs built on Power Architecture technology is designed for engine management, body control, gateway, safety, chassis and driver ..." -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 04:05 -0400
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 09:52 -0700
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 09:55 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-06-02 10:09 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-06-02 10:01 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-02 07:36 -1000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-05 02:50 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-05 11:32 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-05 05:01 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 17:04 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-07 23:12 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-08 09:48 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-07 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 09:05 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 14:17 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 20:20 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 15:03 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 22:06 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 19:13 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-11 02:59 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 21:41 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-11 00:40 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 01:24 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 05:33 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 10:37 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 00:17 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-10 18:13 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-06-02 14:21 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-06-02 14:27 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bob <bob@none.com> - 2015-06-02 16:04 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-03 05:17 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-03 03:07 -0400
csiph-web