Elektronik
04 23. Februar 2021 8,00 €Organ derEMBEDDED SYSTEMTECHNOLOGYSECURE ELEMENTS FÜR IOT-ANWENDUNGENSICHERHEIT EINFACH
HANDHABEN
AICSPENI
R
LPM
ORTF

R
E
GSEG

NEU
Jetzt 28 Seiten
als Heft im Heft!
Qseven, SMARC oder COM?
Entscheidungshilfen in
Sachen Computermodul
Model-based System
Engineering – von der Idee
bis zum virtuellen Produkt

Digi-Key_9-6_Mil _DE_Snipe_EK_22_20.pdf;S: 1;Format:(55.00 x 55.00 mm);12.Oct 2020 09:55:57

Readers test

A SUMMARY OF RESULTS(Image: SEGGER)“E MBEDDED STUDIO”
FROM SEGGER ACHIEVESTOP RATING

Ten Elektronik readers subjected the “Embedded Studio” development
environment from SEGGER to an extensive practical test by undertaking
numerous experiments. Here are the test results in detail.
By Gerhard Stelzer
In the Elektronik 21-2020 issue, we
invited readers to apply to us to becomea tester for the “Embedded Studio”
development environment from SEGGER Microcontroller. Out of almost one
hundred interested parties, we selected
ten participants. The Editors of Elektronik sent each tester a test evaluation
sheet and SEGGER sent them the subjectof the test, namely the “J-Link PLUS”
debug hardware and the Embedded
Studio license. The software itself could2

be downloaded directly from SEGGER’s
homepage. The test results are now
available but first, a brief summary of
the test object‘s most important features.

ABOUT “EMBEDDED STUDIO”
The subject of this test is the “CrossPlatform IDE Embedded Studio“ fromSEGGER. Embedded Studio provides
developers with a development environment characterized by its flexibilityin use and with code that is optimizedfor real-life applications. Embedded
Studio includes SEGGER‘s proprietaryruntime and floating-point libraries,compilers and linkers. SEGGER’s primary development goal was to enable
users to easily develop fast programswith minimal memory requirements
tailored to the target system.
For this reason, Embedded Studioand all its components are also used
for the development of the compaE l e k t r o n i k 0 4. 20 2 1

Readers test

SEGGER website. There are no restrictions in terms of code size, function­ality or duration of use.
In the test Embedded Studio was evaluated in three main categories according
to school grades from 1 to 5.

(Image: SEGGER)

WHAT WAS TESTED?

Image 1: To conduct the Embedded Studio test,SEGGER provided all testers with the „J-Link
PLUS“ debug hardware, which the testers wereallowed to keep after the test.

ny‘s own products including “J-Link”
debug probes, “J-Trace” trace probes
and “Flasher” programming devices.
This interaction between development
and internal use for the company‘s ownproducts enables SEGGER to carry out
additional practical and targeted development based on its own experience.
Optimizations, which serve to reducethe code size and improve execution
speed, are carried out during various phases of the “build” process. The“Linker” can make optimum use of theusually limited memory capacity of
microcontrollers. Code blocks can be
distributed over several memory areas
and unusable memory locations can beomitted.
Embedded Studio supports all of thefeatures that characterize J-Link andJ-Trace, such as unlimited breakpoints
in flash memory or RTT (Real TimeTransfer). Ozone, the J-Link debugger
and performance analysis tool, as wellas SystemView, the real-time analysis
and visualization tool, can also be run
directly from an Embedded Studio pro­
ject. In line with the company’s crossplatform policy, SEGGER‘s Embedded
Studio also works not only on SystemView and Ozone but also on Windows,
Linux and macOS.
Furthermore, for educational and noncommercial purposes, Embedded Studio can be downloaded free of charge
and without registration from theThe practical test was divided into three
categories:➔➔ 1. Commissioning➔➔ 2. Operation➔➔ 3. Conclusion
The testers were asked to rate theindividual disciplines of the subject byfilling out their test sheets based on theschool grading system, in other words
from 1 to 5. For assessments that could
not be expressed in grades, there werecomment fields, which were also used
extensively.

1. START-UP
Since the test object is software, wehave adapted the test criteria accordingly. Start-up covers the aspects ofinstallation, license management, initial use and documentation.
1.1. INSTALLATION• Download of the software 1.4
• Installation
1.4• Scope
1.3• Availability for different
operating systems 1.0➔➔ One tester would have preferred an
installation guide instead of “releasenotes”, another praised the good introduction compared to Keil, Eclipse andGreenhills.
1.2. LICENSE MANAGEMENT• Comprehensibility oflicense conditions 	
1.4• Use with “non-commercial”
license 	
1.2• License management 	
1.7➔➔ Most testers found they could
work well with the license management. One tester remarked, “I think thenon-commercial license is a good idea,
e.g. to connect students or hobbyists
to the product. In my opinion, it will
pay off.”

1.3. FIRST TIME USE• Start time 1.1•F irst impression 	1.4
•G
 etting started withdevelopment 1.4➔➔ One tester praised the dashboard,saying (among other things) that it wasvery informative and that one can see
if there are updates and recently usedprojects. Several testers mentioned thesoftware’s quick start. There was also
general praise for the good clarity.
1.4. DOCUMENTATION• User manual 	
2.0•A
 dditional documentation 1.7
•S upport
1.3➔➔ Some testers found the user manual rather unclear. The integrated help
function, on the other hand, was very
well received. One tester said: “Superonline manual.”
Overall, testers were very satisfied
with the implementation and this wasreflected with an average rating of 1.4.

2. OPERATION
The largest part of the test involved
practical day to day operation with theintegrated development environment(IDE). Its three fields: Project management, Application analysis and Debugging were put to the test.
2.1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT• Project creation 1.3
• Project extension 1.8
• Configuration
1.8• Actual development 	1.8➔➔ One tester found the project options
to be confusing and difficult to get used
to at first. Another tester praised thevery easy entry into a complex tool.
Other comments: Extension via dragand-drop would be very practical, anda better explanation of the different
configuration levels would also bedesirable.
2.2. APPLICATION ANALYSIS• Memory requirements 	• Analysis capabilities 	• Map File 	• Linker• Post-build 	

1.4
1.3
1.6
1.9
1.7

0 4. 20 2 1 E l e k t r o n i k 3

Readers test

Image 2: In operation the Embedded Studio development environment from SEGGER achieved anaverage grade of 1.5 and was praised for its overall clarity. (Image: SEGGER)➔➔ Several testers considered the memory requirements to be quite low. One
tester would have liked to see a structured preparation of the Map File while
another would have liked export to PDF.
2.3. Debugging• Hardware setup 
1.3• Download time 
1.1• Performance/response time 
1.2• Analysis window 
1.7• Debug output 1.4
• Execution control 
1.3
Onetester
notedtheveryfastexecu➔➔
tion. Another praised the debug functions as intuitive and clear. Another
tester criticized the somewhat awkward
operation of the analysis windows.
This means that Embedded Studio also
impressed the testers during operation,with an average grade of 1.5.

3. CONCLUSION
For the final assessment, the testers were asked to evaluate various
4

overriding aspects and to indicate
their weighting of these aspects withregards to a purchase decision for aproduct. No weighting was taken into
account for the following grades.
• Price/performance ratio 1.8
• Scope of delivery/documentation 1.8• Practical operation 1.3
• Overall impression 1.6➔➔One tester commented: “Overall,I think that Embedded Studio is avery successful and usable development environment.” Another: “Alltogether, a well-structured tool thatmakes it surprisingly easy to getstarted.” Another tester said: “TheJ-Link Debugger and Embedded Studio are excellent tools for professional
embedded development. Compilingand loading source code to the target
is extremely fast, debugging responds
reliably and quickly. However, thedocumentation and wiki/videos could,
in my opinion, do with being polishedand updated a bit.”

The overall rating resulted in a 1.6 inthe report card.
In terms of weighting, it is noticeable that the testers fell into two distinct groups. One group considers theprice-performance ratio to be the mostimportant factor, the other group theoperation and overall impression. Here,
therefore, we see a division between“Cost conscious” and “Premium”. Interestingly enough, both groups werevery satisfied with SEGGER‘s Embedded Studio. GS

German schoolnote system:

very good➔➔1.0–1.5➔➔1.6–2.5 good➔➔2.6–3.5 satisfactory➔➔3.6–4.0 sufficient➔➔5.0 	does not meetrequirements

E l e k t r o n i k 0 4. 20 2 1