Welcome to Telelogic Product Support
  Home Downloads Knowledgebase Case Tracking Licensing Help Telelogic Passport
Telelogic Rhapsody (steve huntington)
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Rhapsody in C code generation for small targets
Topic Summary: experience exchange, tips, tricks and technical pitfalls requested
Created On: 15-Jan-2008 16:39
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic
E-mail this topic to someone. E-mail this topic
Bookmark this topic Bookmark this topic
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 15-Jan-2008 16:39
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Christian Loibl

Posts: 8
Joined: 11-Jun-2007

Hello,

I would like to ask you about your experience in Rhapsody code generation, especial for small targets.

We are working as supplier in the automotive industry.
Our targets are 16bit/32bit CPUs (e.g. NEC V850, MPC 551x) with RAM from 2-20kb and 128-256kb ROM.
The main objective is to generate C code for drivers, and state driven applications like turn indicator etc.


We have some experience with Statemate (Rhapsody for MicroC) code generation and also some experts for matlab simulink.
I tried to implement an example project with some state machines and integrated it into the target (16bit). Therefore I used the synchronous framework.
The first outcomes are not as I expected, performance is worse than in Statemate and the RAM ROM consumption are more than twice as Statemate.

Used:
Rhapsody in C
Synchronous Framework
Singleton Objects
State machines

I have not started to analyse the generated code in detail, but there are some OO mechanism in we don't need at code level.
E.g.: No virtual function tables, the mapping between implementation and usage is always done at compile time.
Ok we have no dynamic memory handling, and most objects are singletons.


So we have to configure the code generation, perhaps adapt the framework to our needs.


Now I'm waiting for the new release of Rhapsody and questioning myself: "How many effort I have to plan, to get a acceptable code generation?"
Did someone of you have experience in an adaption like this?



Best regards,
Christian Loibl

VDO Automotive AG
SV I IC QM PMT SWEMT
Siemensstrasse 12, 93055 Regensburg, Germany

Ein Unternehmen des Continental-Konzerns/A Company of the Continental Corporation

E-Mail: Christian.Loibl@continental-corporation.com
http://www.continental-corporation.com
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 12-Mar-2008 11:49
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Mike Pagel

Posts: 4
Joined: 27-Mar-2006

Hi Christian,

we are using Rhapsody in C to generate code for automotive ECUs. Until now, we have to replace the shipped OXF implementation with a custom framework from Willert Software Tools, which is small, light-weight implementation of the main OXF interfaces. In addition, you may want to look into the upcoming extended OXF for C, which seems to allow to go similar ways with the built-in framework implementation. As far as I know, this becomes available with RiC 7.2.

Mike
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 20-Mar-2008 02:41
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Bjorn Carlson

Posts: 5
Joined: 22-Jan-2007

I am in a similar situation, where I have a target CPU with roughly the same capabilities. I don't have an RTOS so my plan is to use the interrupt driven framework (IDF). It is supposed to have a small footprint and also be easy to implement.

Have you looked into IDF?

Best regards
Bjorn Carlson
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
Statistics
20925 users are registered to the Telelogic Rhapsody forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.
You have posted 0 messages to this forum. 0 overall.

FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.