Searching \ for 'New Compiler Wanted' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=new+compiler+wanted
Search entire site for: 'New Compiler Wanted'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'New Compiler Wanted'
1998\04\07@134201 by Keith Kammler

flavicon
face
part 0 381 bytes
If you have a favorite C compiler for the PIC, please submit the name / link and anything else you think would be helpful.

At this stage, PRICE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
    HiTech
    CCS
    Microchip (ByteCraft)

ANSI C only, please.

Keith Kammler
Firmware Engineer
Spintek Gaming Technologies
Las Vegas NV

1998\04\07@151012 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Keith Kammler wrote:
> Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
>      HiTech
>      CCS
>      Microchip (ByteCraft)
>
> ANSI C only, please.

Hi Keith,

I thought that Microchip C, although having roots in ByteCraft, was
different and outdated, and that ByteCraft MPC was current.

Also, only HiTech is ANSI, correct?

Cheers,
Bob

1998\04\07@161836 by Walter Banks

picon face
> I thought that Microchip C, although having roots in ByteCraft, was
> different and outdated, and that ByteCraft MPC was current.

MPC is a quite differe

1998\04\07@162903 by Richard Nowak

picon face
I don't know what ByteCraft is doing with any PIC C compiler.  Perhaps
Walter Banks can enlighten us.

MPLAB-C is Microchip's C compiler which evolved from ByteCraft's and has
been fixing bugs etc..

Microchip is ready to release MPLAB-C17 version 2.10 in May.  This compiler
is supposed to be more robust and is, according to Microchip, "...
performing well in ANSI compliance tests."

Version 2.0 is complete and they are working on code efficiency
optimizations.  I believe this version is available as a conditional release.

I have been using MPLAB-C version 1.21 with its known limitations and
problems.  If you're not careful, you may find your code out there trying to
make hay from weeds.

I would add optimizations to Keith's comments e.g., switches for fast code
and tight code.  It would be nice to switch to generating fast code, say in
the interrupts, from tight code everywhere else.  I would not care the
number of passes to get it right.

Complex code lines, which MPLAB-C has great difficulty with, lends itself
well to generating tight code.  So hopefully MPLAB-C17 has accomplished
great things with their new parsing engine.

Rich

At 11:52 AM 4/7/98 -0700, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

=========================================
= Abolish the Income Tax! Fire the IRS! =
= http://www.nrst.org/                  =
=========================================
=========================================
= Here's a site that wants your views   =
= http://www.not4irs.org/               =
=========================================

1998\04\07@164119 by Steve Baldwin

flavicon
face
> Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
>      HiTech
>      CCS
>      Microchip (ByteCraft)

Would you care to elaborate on the problems you have had with each of
them. It's pretty hard to find comparisons between compilers that
aren't based on sales literature or an hour or two of playing. I'm
sure there would be many people on the list that would be interested
in your comments.

Steve.


======================================================
Steve Baldwin                Electronic Product Design
TLA Microsystems Ltd         Microcontroller Specialists
PO Box 15-680, New Lynn      http://tla.co.nz
Auckland, New Zealand        ph  +64 9 820-2221
email: spam_OUTstevebTakeThisOuTspamtla.co.nz      fax +64 9 820-1929
======================================================

1998\04\07@193213 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
>     HiTech
>     CCS
>     Microchip (ByteCraft)

CCS and Microchip's old one are obvious offenders, but I've had nothing but
good from the HiTech compiler.  I'm waiting on an update for an overzealous
optimizer right now, but other than that it is ROCK SOLID and definitely
worth the money I paid for the two copies I use (one at work, one at home).

What are you having a problem with?

For the record, I have used all three and still use two of them (HiTech for
new code, Microchip for legacy) on a daily basis.  CCS could do pretty well
for limited stuff, but the version-du-jour really made CM impossible
(besides there was a _reason_ a new day made for a new version).

Andy

==================================================================
                    Andy Kunz - Montana Design
         Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!
==================================================================

1998\04\08@094557 by Mayes

flavicon
picon face
In message  <.....01BD6211.6D952960KILLspamspam@spam@keithk.spintek.com> PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
writes:
[snips]
> Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
>      HiTech
>      CCS
>      Microchip (ByteCraft)
>
> ANSI C only, please.

It would be interesting to know what you thought was wrong with each of
the above.

Regards,

Mike Watson

1998\04\08@132843 by Mark S.

flavicon
face
How much is the Hitech C Compiler?

>CCS and Microchip's old one are obvious offenders, but I've had nothing but
>good from the HiTech compiler.  I'm waiting on an update for an overzealous
>optimizer right now, but other than that it is ROCK SOLID and definitely
>worth the money I paid for the two copies I use (one at work, one at home).
>
>

1998\04\08@132843 by Mark S.

flavicon
face
How much is the Hitech C Compiler?

>CCS and Microchip's old one are obvious offenders, but I've had nothing but
>good from the HiTech compiler.  I'm waiting on an update for an overzealous
>optimizer right now, but other than that it is ROCK SOLID and definitely
>worth the money I paid for the two copies I use (one at work, one at home).
>
>

1998\04\08@160226 by Kestas Biliunas

flavicon
face
Keith Kammler wrote:

If you have a favorite C compiler for the PIC, please submit the name / link and
anything else you think would be helpful.

> At this stage, PRICE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
>
> Just to eliminate repeat offenders, these are already off the list:
>      HiTech  <--- !!!
>      CCS
>      Microchip (ByteCraft)
>
> ANSI C only, please.
>

I ve tried  MPC and MPLAB-C (both demo) long ago, and I was verydisappointed.  I
decided that there can t be good compiler for PIC s. But
now I work with HiTech demo, and  I m very pleased. I m surprised it s
features. But it has one bad thing: it costs too much. If I won t care
about price, I would buy only it.
Though I think that HiTech is the best, it is interesting for me
to know what features are bad for others?

1998\04\08@201948 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
At 10:26 PM 4/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>How much is the Hitech C Compiler?

About $US800, less if you upgrade from MPLAB-C.  Been a while.

Andy


==================================================================
                    Andy Kunz - Montana Design
         Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!
==================================================================

1998\04\14@010832 by tjaart

flavicon
face
Scott Walsh wrote:

>      OK at least we understand where you are 'coming from', for want of a
>      better phrase *8-)
>
>      I have played with MicrChip MPLAB-C offering about 18 months ago,
>      which I know is a long time and I hope they would ave improved it no
>      end by now .... have they? As you are eluding to, the generated code
>      was terrible and the amount of 'C-likeness' was unforgivable.

That version of MPLAB-C had me fuming... The hard-assed responsesI got from Microchip made me decide
to NEVER,EVER buy any software
from them again. They screwed up big time with that one, but never admitted
to being completely in the wrong, nor did they ever refund anyone for the
empty promises of upgrades.
Come on guys - you can come out of the closet now!

Of course, MPLAB is free, so I don't have to buy it ;)

In all fairness, MPC (Bytecraft) has come a long way from the abortive
MPLAB-C days. Currently it is my compiler of choice for a whole lot
of reasons, some of which are :
1) ONE compiler to support all the PICs
  Not many different little damn modules you have to buy and try to get to work
2) It integrates fully into MPLAB.
 No cut-and-paste hassles with different editors.
3) The debugging (.COD file) actually works.
 This isn't the case with all the compilers - watch out.
4) The code generation is ok.
 You can probably do better if you spend a few weeks hacking away in
 assembly, but that's the case with all compilers.
5) The support from Walter is quick and effective.

>      In fact it was the quality of the dev tools that lead me to not use
>      the PIC in my current project!

You (usually) get what you pay for.

My advice is : Stay away from Mchip deals - rather buy directly from the
software house of your choice and get the support your money deserves.

BTW I have legal copies of CCS, MPLAB-C(aaaargh!), NITPIC and MPC.

--
Friendly Regards

Tjaart van der Walt
.....tjaartKILLspamspam.....wasp.co.za

|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
|SMS EraseME0832123443spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTwasp.co.za  (160 chars max)|
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...