In Visual Studio 2017 15.5 Preview 2 we are introducing support for cross compilation targeting ARM microcontrollers. To enable this in the installation choose the Linux development with C++ workload and select the option for Embedded and IoT Development. This adds the ARM GCC cross compilation tools and Make to your installation.
Our cross compilation support uses our Open Folder capabilities so there is no project system involved. We are using the same JSON configuration files from other Open Folder scenarios and have added additional options to support the toolchains introduced here. We hope that this provides flexibility for many styles of embedded development. The best way to get started with this and understand the capabilities is with a project exported from the ARM mbed online compiler. We’ll cover the basics here, to learn more about the online compiler see ARM’s tutorials, and you can sign up for an account here.
With Windows RT and Mobile dead, what is the ARM market they want to exploit?
Because they’ve released Windows 10 for the Raspberry Pi. More generally, it’s a push into IoT infrastructure.
They probably want to keep Visual Studio a relevant brand with native Windows application development shrinking relative to web and mobile applications.
(ie. If you primarily develop web and mobile apps, why would you bother with a “native+web-only” IDE if some other IDE does web+mobile?)
Edited 2017-11-03 15:34 UTC
Would have expected to see a LLVM based compiler rather than the GCC option (that even OpenBSD regards as old fashioned).
OpenBSD isn’t dropping GCC out of performance reasons but because of crippling license autism. GCC outperforms LLVM/Clang and quite likely always will.
I’m pretty sure that you can come up with a more descriptive and less hateful phrase than “license autism.”
The derison was part of the accuracy of the description. They’re forfeiting significant performance and in some cases having to drop architectures entirely all because of some irrational fear of the GPLv3.
Irrational to you perhaps, obviously not to them! And to be fair there is plenty of projects out there that are also keeping clear of GPLv3 and staying with GPLv2. Each to their own.
Hi,
You’re behind the times. The code generated by CLANG often performs better than the code generated by GCC; and CLANG (with its well designed modern architecture) is improving its optimisations faster than GCC (with it’s old rotting code).
The main difference is supported targets (GCC supports more obscure old junk that nobody cares about).
– Brendan
You’re also behind the times regarding GCC, they’ve rewritten and update a lot of the toolchain/backend. LOL
Basically they’re both now neck to neck. But at the end of the day, gcc still has a bigger library of optimizations. Whereas LLVM is a cleaner/saner base to target a new compiler/language.
What I think it’s remarkable how damn good both opensource projects are. They basically put to shame some expensive commercial offerings.
Only to consider later that private companies paid their tribute by contributing a large amount of the code base.
Edited 2017-11-04 22:16 UTC
There’s lots of involvement from all sorts of institutions and individuals in both projects, from private for profit companies, to unpaid volunteers.
But the point of note is that both projects produce great tools that are both opensource and free.
I think it’s a fantastic achievement, to have lowered the barriers of entry to programming to such levels, if you consider how much a crappy compiler used to cost a while back.
Hi,
The comment I replied to claimed “forfeiting significant performance”.
Unless you think “neck and neck” is the same as “significant performance difference” you are agreeing with me.
– Brendan
You could also have noted I was pointing out that you are out of the loop with regards to the state of gcc’s “rotten code.”
Cheers.
Looks like I’ve missed much of the conversation here, but the derision I was talking about had nothing to do with objections to licenses and everything to do with using the term ‘autistic’ as a pejorative. Autism spectrum disorder is a complex, real, and painful phenomenon for those affected by it, and your use of the term is really quite insensitive and borders on hateful. Next time you want to imply that people are acting over fussy about license issues, maybe you should just call them pedantic, or over-zealous.
I am sorry but I am getting really tired of the thought police. I used to work in social care; there were several changes of terminology while I was employed in that area, each time apparently reflecting a more enlightened view of those I was caring for, assisting, and helping to lead independent lives.
What I noticed was those who had the right attitude to begin with, continued to have the right and respectful attitude. Those that did not possess this faculty did not gain it by being forced to use different terminology.
But this present mania about language means that small, vociferous, self-selecting and solipsistic minorities presume to adjudicate and in the end dictate how others think and can express themselves. There is neither rationality nor objectivity to it.
Calling someone a pedant is also negative, it is just that there is no activist group of agitating, in-group fixating pedants with a political platform and self-selecting agenda to object.
Orf.
No,
He is right. Using autist in this way shows a lack of individual thought.
It’s targeting a group affected by a disorder based on a stereotypical preconception that has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.
Try addressing the behavior you are trying to highlight, not a medical disorder.
Sorry, I mistakenly thought that orfanum and tidux were the same person.
My reply was to orfanum not tidux.
Then pretty soon you will end up removing words such as paranoid and schizophrenic, which are used metaphorically as well as in their purely medical senses,from people’s registers. Where do you want to end? Do you wish to reduce language to a base literalness?
If you haven’t understood, I am arguing for the inherent creativity and flexibility of language, not for the right to be hateful.
Orf
Creativity comes from limitations. And language doesn’t need help in maintaining its flexibility. Language can’t help but change.
Using terms like autism, schizo and other such words are inherently uncreative. Would you judge someone who uses “fuck” as their only adjective as creative?
You are not addressing my point which is precisely that the creativity of language does need help in the face of the “Four legs good,two legs better” thought police.
And as regards expletives and intelligence:
https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence…
It is about the versatility of language, something that the present activist and SJW constituency appears to want to reduce in the name of ephemeral posturing.
Orf
And what you’re doing is ephemeral posturing to show how anti-SJW you are. Anti-SJWs like you are worse than SJWs at that sort of thing.
The bait and switch I believe you inserted with the example of “fuck”, moving the argument to one about expletives.
I said creativity and flexibility; combined one might call that versatility.
Simply because I criticize what appears to me to be the most obvious form of denaturing language at the moment in the shape of SJW-types does not mean I am arguing against them per se.
I am arguing for retaining the abundant and fecund nature of language. And this is an abiding concern of mine.
But nice try to belittle the substance of the argument by attempting to pigeonhole me; but then again, it confirms my sense of how language is being politicised – i.e, it seems to be the case that more weight is attached to who is saying something than what is actually being said, with the validity of language not resting in what is named but who is doing the naming. And it seems to me that who may say things with impunity depends on apparent political credentials, which shift and change at a whim, to the extent that even those who are deeply within the SJW camp are beginning to see how problematic this mode of language use and dialogue is:
https://hellofranceslee.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/mention-by-kai-chen…
Enough said.
Orf.
I see that like the Linux community’s irrational fear of commercial licences?
Would be interesting how practical it is now to do bare metal programming on the Rasperry Pi using (the free version of) Visual Studio.
You can already using VisualGDB.