Is there a request for CCS on MAC OSx?

+1 for me. Would be nice. If you have Linux support doesn't seem like it would be a big effort to get it running on OSX.

Yes, please.  It's now May 2013, and ...  I wish I could use CCS on Mac / OSX to reduce desk clutter (won't need 2 computers), and avoid problems with virtual machines & windoze both.

regards

Another vote here. I hate booting a VM to use CCS, so I have pieced together an open-source solution on Mac, but am also not happy with OpenOCD and libusb. Would prefer a native CCS.

I would be happy if the xdc tools would be available for Mac OSX. So a command line build of sys/bios applications should be possible. Compilers (gnu arm toolchain) are available, but the XDC tools are only Windows/Linux supported. Of course a Mac OS version of CCS would be nice, but in the first place I wish the XDC tools would be compiled for MAC.

Regards,

Torsten

+1 for xdc tools and cross compiler

+1 for C2000 and C6000 compilers for OS X. The complete CCS suite would be nice too :-)

+1 please.

Hello ki-Soo,

I have not done development with ti processors in favour of atmel and microchip because of support for Mac OS. I am truly keen to venture into the c2000 series but do not want to have to run a VM.

Please ti consider a Mac port for CCS. We have been waiting for more than 2 and a half years at least. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Albert

Surely TI could hire a couple OS X app coding experts to knock this up in a year to keep the ever growing osx community happy? Oh to have native JTAG support (...I dreamed a dream...)

@Philip: I think one year is a bit excessive estimation for this.

Up, Up. I do not know about the drivers. But it is based on eclipse for god's sake... How hard can it be ?

I too have wanted a Mac native CCS for a while. Because eclipse, arm-gcc, lm4flash, openocd, gdb are all available on the Mac, how hard can it be to port to the Mac?

I am happy to report, not too hard. After a day of tinkering I have a full Tiva/Stellaris IDE on the Mac. I followed the tutorial by doragasu on installing Stellarisware on linux. I changed a few things to get Tivaware on Mac. The steps can be found in another forum on stellarisiti.com: 

http://forum.stellarisiti.com/topic/1745-complete-tiva-ide-using-eclipse-on-mac-including-flash-and-debug/

Compile, flashing, and GUI debugging all work.

Edit: I have ten points for whatever reason. TI thinks I'm a prodigy.

I develop iPhone apps that work with TI Microcontrollers....and find myself switching between Xcode IDE on the Mac and CCS on Windows....which is annoying.

So a Mac version of CCS is definitely something that would help my work flow.

...and according to Peter Kim's message, it does not look all that difficult to implement...of course I do understand you will need to support it and test it and all the rest, but I bet the cost of this would be easily offset by the increased numbers of people from currently untapped markets now taking a look into Texas Instruments embedded products.

Microchip have MPLAB for the Mac and a lot of PIC developers are beginning to look at 32Bit chips. Do they go with PIC32 or TI ARM or an ARM Competitor? Not having a Mac IDE will make the decision very easy for a lot of them.

Glenn.

+1 for a real IDE with support for TI MCUs on OS X.

It could be the Eclipse-based CCS or it could use another OS X-compatible IDE. NetBeans is sais to deliver superior performance and ease of use. Google has ditched Eclipse and has selected IntellJ IDEA for Android development.

And please, don't forget support for Energia as CCS 6 includes it.

+1

I'd assume that porting the gcc compiler might be easier now as there is the beta version of CCS with GCC available. So it might just be a matter of compiling the msp430 gcc source on the Mac platform?

@MartinFischer: Mac has an old gcc (4.3) to my understanding. It would be better to use clang on Mac.

In Xcode 5, GCC is deprecated. Xcode uses LLVM instead. 

Important: Xcode 5 does not support use of the LLVM-GCC compiler and the GDB debugger. Existing projects configured to use LLVM-GCC and GDB will be reconfigured to use the LLVM compiler and LLDB debugger when opened by Xcode 5. Please file a bug using bugreporter.apple.com for any issues that prevent you from moving to Xcode 5 for this reason.

Now, adding the GCC tool-chain and even GDB is easy. See for example embedXcode, an implementation for Xcode based on Energia, which includes the tools-chains and all the utilities like uploader for the MSP430 and Tiva C MCUs. 

@Laszio:

Sorry I was not precise enough about that - Yes I meant to use clang. In fact, I downloaded the tar files from the 

TI website and tried to compile it, but was not successful so far. There is an issue with X11 support that was missing. Maybe I need to install XQuartz - I'm new to the Mac platform, coming from Ubuntu and windows.

Anyway it seemed to me that it should be possible with a reasonable amount of time.

@Rei:

Thats an interesting link, but I'm not sure how this relates to the "official" TI red hat Gcc source from the above link. Is this project using the mac port of mspgcc?

I think it would be nice to have a msp430 gcc compiler that compiles with minor changes from the tarball from TI (see link above) - especially since mspgcc might not be longer updatet. 

Martin Fischer said:

@Rei:

Thats an interesting link, but I'm not sure how this relates to the "official" TI red hat Gcc source from the above link. Is this project using the mac port of mspgcc?

I think it would be nice to have a msp430 gcc compiler that compiles with minor changes from the tarball from TI (see link above) - especially since mspgcc might not be longer updatet. 

The msp430-gcc included in Energia and used in embedXcode returns

$ msp430-gcc -v

gcc version 4.6.3 20120301 (mspgcc LTS 20120406 unpatched) (MSPGCC 20120406 (With patches: sf3540953 sf3559978)) 

Yes, a Mac version would be awesome.  I have not tried the TI embedded chips because I don't have a PC.

Just to add my 2 snt.

A Mac port would be awesome. I'm currently using Windows with Virtual Machine and a pure Mac solution would be soooo nice.

I saw that someone said that JIDEA or Netbeans would be better, I've never used either one but there already is a strong C/C++ 'ecosystem' around Eclipse and I think at least Netbeans is mainly Java, may make sense for Google to drop Eclipse for Android as that is pure Java but for the rest of us I think Eclipse makes more sense.

Some one mentioned Xocde, I have to use it for somethings and I would hope no-one would ever mention it again in my presence ;)

Compilers could be as easy using WINE with the Windows compiler.exe files, I've done that with great success on Mac and Linux with some compilers that are not available for anything but Windows. That might lessen the porting time (nothing to port?!) and testing time (nothing to test?!)

As to the debugger, I would suggest open sourcing it and just doing it, how hard can it be, many seem to be just FTDI serial dongle chips so that should be trivial from Java using JavaComm/RXTX or my own PureJavaComm.

cheers Kusti

Kustaa Nyholm said:

Some one mentioned Xocde, I have to use it for somethings and I would hope no-one would ever mention it again in my presence ;)

There are already two options for Mac OS X.

• Energia 

Energia is an IDE *** framework for the LaunchPad and BoosterPack boards. 

Energia is two things: the IDE is a fork of Arduino and provides minimal features; the framework relies on the Wiring / Arduino set of libraries and functions.

Energia focused on the LaunchPad boards and provides an easy implementation for different MCUs like the MSP430G2452 and MSP430G2553, MSP430FR5739, Stellaris LM4F120H5QR, Tiva C Series TM4C123GH6PM and TM4C129XNCZAD. 

If the limitations of the IDE makes Energia suitable for beginners and small projects, the framework is robust enough for advanced projects and fast prototyping. One key feature is the same code can run on different MCUs with virtually no change.

• embedXcode 

embedXcode is a template for Xcode —sorry :)— that leverages the Energia framework and provides all the features of Xcode, including debugging —breakpoints are defined in Xcode and the debugging session runs on a Terminal window.

It requires the prior installation of Energia for the tool-chains, libraries and utilities. I'm using this template for developing libraries and also for large project running on the Stellaris now Tiva C Series LaunchPad. One nice feature is self-documentation as a PDF file.

embedXcode also supports other boards and MCUs, including ATmega-based Arduino and Microduino, PIC32-based chipKIT, and other ARM flavours for Maple and Teensy 3.1 boards.

Thanks,

I did not know of either. I'm currently developing for F28027 so this does not directly help me, also rather than get my hands used to yet-an-other-IDE-with-all-the-features-only-different I think I'll wait until Eclipse is available…I'm so tired of all the embedded (and for that matter Java) tool/chip vendors thinking they can do better, fortunately some of them have seen the light and are moving towards a more or less vanilla Eclipse, witness AnalogDevices and Microchip.

If they all would just see that what real programmers really need is pretty much same regardless of CPU and realise that in todays world programmers are required to switch projects and CPUs on the fly so having the same tools works everywhere should be the norm. No wonder many of us still use 'vi'!

br Kusti

I fully agree with you. Java-based IDEs require a lot of resources an power, hence my selection of Xcode.

All the IDEs of the Processing/Arduino/Wiring family are the same except the included tool-chains and the colour of the interface. 

Now, Windows and Linux are considered as standard platforms for embedded development, but not OS X. Why?

Eclipse is already available for OS X, so porting CCS shouldn't that difficult... except for legal reasons maybe.

Anyway, let's hope...

All the available ingredients do exist. I also hope to see css in mac osx as soon as possible. It is a big disadvantage for the TI not to have one.

I hope to hear from TI as soon as possible.

I hope we will get support for OS X real soon.

It is a pain to have to fire a virtual machine for a job that could run faster in native mode. There is already support for Linux, so I do not understand why OS X is not supported.

I use Kicad for hardware design, and I build it on the Mac from the sources for Linux. Why TI doesn't do a similar thing?

I have stopped any MSP430 work now, and using Microchip instead because they have MPX-Lab running on OS X. When CCS will run on OS X, I might come back to the 430 chips.

Yes, it would be nice to have CSS for Mac.

We got some promise about it a few years ago, but no news since then. One of the reason all our research platforms are progressively switching to freescale based solutions.

Sylvain Girbal1,

Can you please tell more about Freescale solutions regarding OS X?

I’ve checked out Freescale website, it says:

CodeWarrior for Mac OS has been discontinued and is no longer sold or supported.

Richard Glenn said:

That's another good suggestion.  Xcode fits into the same place in the tool chain as Eclipse.  Both treat the compiler as an external executable, and both also treat the debugger as an external.

That's the technique I'm using with embedXcode, a plug-in for Xcode that support the LaunchPads and Energia, among many other boards and platforms. 

See http://embedxcode.weebly.com

We have been making some progress on porting our development tools to Mac.  We plan on having an initial beta release hopefully before the end of the year supporting MSP430 and then subsequent releases next year that add in support for more device families.

As this is our first attempt at Mac support if you could take the time to fill in the survey below it would help us prioritizing our test lab setup.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RH8SC7Y

Thanks,

John

Hi John,

I just filled the survey.

Any updates regarding the Beta release? Is there an option to sign-up as a beta tester?

Thanks,

Itay Cohen

Itay,

Thanks for filling out the survey.  We are running an internal beta right now.  I don't think the public beta is going to make it out until early next year.   Things are coming together though.

Regards,

John

I vote +1 for Mac CCS version

Is there a way to keep up to date on the progress of porting this IDE?

Thanks !

During these years, the community could have written one from scratch rather than waiting for TI as they apparently do not care that much, LOL.

Indeed the community could if the compiler source code were available!

Indeed there is not that much code, Eclipse CDT is pretty much all I need if I can get the compilers, don't care for most of the 'added value' stuff that TI has put into Code Composer Studio. Not very useful and not very well implemented, if they open sourced those Eclipse Views I'd be happy to fix worst of the annoying problems in the user interface (don't get me started).

In general I wish all the chip makers (Analog Devices/Visual DSP, Microchip/MPLABX, TI/CodeComposeStudio) would realise that we are engineers and we don't need or want or appreciate when they try to 'improve' on Eclipse or Netbeans or whatever. Give me plain vanilla Eclipse CDT anytime and compilers (open source or not as long as they work) and I'm a happy guy. If they insist on adding something to make their customers life easier (usually it doesn't) they should write that code as plugins to the standard IDEs and open source the code… that way the code would almost write itself and much faster!

Ok, enough ranting, on the more constructive side I've had great success using plain vanilla Eclipse on Mac OS X by using WINE to run the Windows compilers (IAR) for some Renesas chips. With a little bit of glue scripting the process is totally transparent, you don't even know that compilers are running under windows emulation. That of course requires that the compilers can be run under WINE. An other possibility that would be to run CCS in VirtualBox and write a simple proxy software that would TCP/IP compile commands to the Windows side where a the compilers would be run with the source code and object code on shared volumes.

I may have to resort to that if I have to endure writing code in Windows much longer ;)

cheers Kusti

AT last some news.

February is not that far, so I will wait and see.

Hey there,

well... it's quite I while since I've posted this question if there should be a CCS for MAC OS X.

Now that this questions got nearly 60k views (!), making it the second most popular question in the CCS Sub-Forum I'm happy to hear there will be a CCS on OS X very soon!

I'm keen to give it it try! Well, let's see how it will compare to CrossWorks (sorry TI, but I couldn't wait for nearly 5 years). 

aBUGSworstnightmare

Hi John,

Any updates regarding the beta release?

Thanks,

Itay Cohen

I'll add my name to the list who would like to see CCS on OS X!

I would also like to get in on the beta

I would like to test the beta CCS on OS X