Post by thread:The Best C Compiler

I hate asking these questions, and I get tired seeing these kinds of subjects posted, but they are really beneficial to a lot of people. Now its my turn I guess. I would like to look into getting a C compiler for the PIC (any of several versions) and I would like to know what others would recommend as a good compiler. In the past couple of years, things have seemed to be changing fast in this area with quite a few compilers now available. I really would appreciate any sincere advice anyone has to lend. As part of my research into getting a good compiler I really need to ask others what they think. What good or bad experiences they have had with certain compilers. Good advice helps me to narrow the search a little. I do most of my non-PIC programming in C for the 68HC11 processor and I really like my (Whitesmith's) compiler. It took me quite a while and a lot of research to find a compiler of this caliber and it was not cheap, but was worth the money. I am NOT looking for something free or cheap since this will be used for professional work and not just a hobbie. My reasons for going to C on the PIC are to reduce develpment time (significantly) and reduce errors in coding. Also, unit testing is easily done in C whereas in assembly language it would take forever. If you recommend a compiler, please tell my why you like it. Does it write small code? Is it not as terrible as all the others? Was it cheap? Was it the one that ran on the most platforms (DOS, Win9x, Linux)? Was it the most bug free of all of them? Why do you like it? Thanks in advance for your help. If you do not wish the whole list to benefit, I would appreciate any e-mail directly too. Lou spam_OUTlcalkinsTakeThisOuTismi.net

I'll try to beat Andy and Tjaart to the punch. To quote one or the other of those guys: "you get what you pay for" I use the CCS http://www.ccsinfo.com/picc.html compiler at $99 plus $99 per year maintenance (which is mandatory given the number of bugfixes) I've found the support to be adequate, I write some good, compact code with it and I am continually surprised by the tricks it knows. I've also had some bugs and some "features" that required workarounds, and some unexplained behaviour. For now, I'm sticking with it. If I could buy Hitech I would - It has been highly recommended and has had few complaints that I am aware of. Sorry I don't have the URL for Hitech - I'm sure it'll be posted within minutes... This topic DOES get a lot of discussion here - if anyone has some SIGNIFIGANT new information please add it - -----Original Message----- From: Lou Calkins <.....lcalkinsKILLspam@spam@ISMI.NET> To: PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <.....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 8:06 AM Subject: The Best C Compiler >I hate asking these questions, and I get tired seeing these kinds of >subjects posted, but they are really beneficial to a lot of people. Now >its my turn I guess. > >I would like to look into getting a C compiler for the PIC

Lou Calkins wrote: > > I hate asking these questions, and I get tired seeing these kinds of > subjects posted, but they are really beneficial to a lot of people. Now > its my turn I guess. > > I would like to look into getting a C compiler for the PIC (any of several > versions) and I would like to know what others would recommend as a good > compiler. In the past couple of years, things have seemed to be changing > fast in this area with quite a few compilers now available. I really would > appreciate any sincere advice anyone has to lend. Before Andy Kunz jumps in, (Hi Andy!) I'll quickly give you my (opiniated) opinion. I have legal copies of MPLAB-C, CCS, NITPIC, and MPC. There are only two 'serious' compilers today : MPC, and Hitech. <flamesuit> There are plenty of PIClisters who swear by CCS and other cheapies, but that is the way of frustration and despair. </flamesuit> Neither are cheap, but they are worth the money (I am assuming this for Hitech). The authors of both are present on the PIClist, and will support you with (real) issues. I am shamelessly biased towards MPC, because it supports ALL the PICs, works great with MPLAB, and I haven't seen a bug in it for ages. You can use the C code examples on Mchip's site virtually without changes. Just to confuse you (and to not disappoint me), Andy Kunz will now tell you why he gets off on Hitech. Take it away Andy.... -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN EraseMEtjaartspam_OUTTakeThisOuTwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : tjaartspam_OUTsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | 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 | |--------------------------------------------------|

Lawrence Lile wrote: > > I'll try to beat Andy and Tjaart to the punch. To quote one or the other of > those guys: ...and I thought I only had Andy to beat! <G> > This topic DOES get a lot of discussion here - if anyone has some > SIGNIFIGANT new information please add it - I would like to know : 1) Does Hitech supports all the PICs? 2) Is its current release stable? 3) What does it do with the 'mapped' 16 bytes in the 8k parts? I am in the dark on these points, and wouldn't like to unfairly jump on poor Clyde (Hi Clyde!) on a non-relevant point. -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN @spam@tjaartKILLspamwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : KILLspamtjaartKILLspamsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | 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 | |--------------------------------------------------|

>Just to confuse you (and to not disappoint me), Andy Kunz will >now tell you why he gets off on Hitech. Take it away Andy.... I agree with everything Tjaart just said. I too have legal copies of HiTech (http://www.htsoft.com Lyle<G>) and Microchip's stuff, and have used CCS in the past but sold it to somebody who wanted a cheap setup. I don't like the HiTech IDE - I work in Windows all the time, and try to avoid project files. Fortunately, HiTech integrates well with the Mathias emulator (and I'm told with MPLAB also). My experience with both Bytecraft (for other stuff) and HiTech is that both provide excellent support, and both know compilers and a variety of chip very well. I originally went with HiTech due to having used the Avocet compilers for eons. I don't regret my decision one bit. I've encouraged my customers and employers to purchase it as well. Another thing - the HiTech assembler is FANTASTIC. It supports all the things that a "real" assembler should, and does it quite well. Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

HiTech C http:\\http://www.htsoft.com An excellent compiler. I have had very few problems and the support is second to none. I am looking forward to a Windows IDE though. Lou Calkins [RemoveMElcalkinsTakeThisOuTISMI.NET] wrote: <snip> > I would like to look into getting a C compiler for the PIC (any of several > versions) and I would like to know what others would recommend as a good > compiler. In the past couple of years, things have seemed to be changing > fast in this area with quite a few compilers now available. I really > would > appreciate any sincere advice anyone has to lend. > <snip>

>...and I thought I only had Andy to beat! <G> Guess all my talking has caused someone else to go this way. >I would like to know : >1) Does Hitech supports all the PICs? It's table driven, so it probably will. You can define a new part with include files easy enough. >2) Is its current release stable? It's been out for several weeks and I haven't had to re-download it. Current version is 7.83pl2 I believe. >3) What does it do with the 'mapped' 16 bytes in the 8k parts? ?? You mean the common bank? They are used properly. ANdy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

Tjaart van der Walt wrote: > > I am shamelessly biased towards MPC, because it supports ALL > the PICs, works great with MPLAB, and I haven't seen a bug in > it for ages. You can use the C code examples on Mchip's site > virtually without changes. > I've used MPC on 6 different PIC16c series - no problems whatsoever. As Tjaart said, it's expensive but support is great, free updates seem to be available forever... and I like to buy Canadian, eh! Tjaart - any problems using MPC on the 16C77? --Matt

I cannot agree with Lawrence's conclusion that the CCS compiler is OK. It seems to be OK, if used carefully, for the smaller RAM sizes. WARNING: The CCS compiler DOES NOT work correctly (even the latest version) for four-bank parts using the straightforward "long" address compiler mode. The insurmountable bugs that I found are in the large RAM support mode. I have three open bug reports with CCS. Telephone support is not available in fact. And they have not answered my emails AT ALL, even to say something like "sorry, you're 20th in line". NOTHING. (In case you are wondering, I paid for support- what a sucker.) > "you get what you pay for" Is probably the driving force. CCS is a small company and seems not to have adequate resources to support the product. There is ONE support person, AFAIK. Which would be OK, if they actually did support, but he seems not to be available much. > I write some good, compact code with it and I am continually surprised by > the tricks it knows. I does write good code for the mainstream cases on small RAM parts. I chose CCS over Hi-tech because I2C support was built in (preprogrammed in the library). Unfortunately, it doesn't work right in Master mode (contrary to claims in the manual.) And finally, the manual is awful. It is incomplete, has significant typos, tons of unsignificant ones. So my conclusion is that for hobbiest level cost, reliablility and support, and size of project, it may be adequate. But for pros who are using the compiler to do a project that is a) Big, OR b)on a limited schedule OR c)needs to be verifiably correct, I cannot recommend it. ------------ Barry King, KA1NLH Engineering Manager NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy" Hinesburg, Vermont, USA spamBeGonebarryspamBeGonenrgsystems.com "The witty saying has been deleted due to limited EPROM space"

At 08:28 03/30/99 -0600, Lawrence Lile wrote: >"you get what you pay for" > >I use the CCS http://www.ccsinfo.com/picc.html compiler at $99 plus $99 per >year maintenance (which is mandatory given the number of bugfixes) [...] >If I could buy Hitech I would - It has been highly recommended and has had >few complaints that I am aware of. the thing is that if you think in a few (ie. a rather small number of) years, the ccs compiler gets actually more expensive than the others, since the $99 per year are mandatory, and with the others bugfixes are free (so far). so if you can take out a small loan (from your bank or your pocket :), the financial argument is not valid anymore. ge

Matt Bonner wrote: > > Tjaart van der Walt wrote: > > > > I am shamelessly biased towards MPC, because it supports ALL > > the PICs, works great with MPLAB, and I haven't seen a bug in > > it for ages. You can use the C code examples on Mchip's site > > virtually without changes. > > > I've used MPC on 6 different PIC16c series - no problems whatsoever. As > Tjaart said, it's expensive but support is great, free updates seem to > be available forever... and I like to buy Canadian, eh! > > Tjaart - any problems using MPC on the 16C77? I've been hammering MPC on the 16C77 ever since the 8k parts came out without problems. I recently had a miscompile (bitwise & became a logical &), but I think I was pushing my luck. I was and-ing multiple variable indexes in an array (baaaaad Tjaart!). As soon as I get my hands on a 16C877 (16F877 - whatever), I am going to try MPC on them too. Providing they are no more expensive than the (already pricey) 16C77, of course. -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN RemoveMEtjaartTakeThisOuTwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : tjaartEraseME.....sms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | 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 | |--------------------------------------------------|

Lawrence Lile wrote: > > I hope I DID NOT leave the impression that I was insanely happy with CCS. > Buyers beware! CCS is remarkably MEDIOCRE. I'm just STUCK with it. CCS > is not a cheap compiler if you count your time and the yearly maintenance. > You'll note that the CCS support people are notably silent on the PIClist - > unlike Hitech and Bytecraft. I think (hope) that everyone will agree that there are only two serious compilers for Mchip so far (MPC and Hitech). I also think that these discussions will benefit both these companies (and they deserve it too). The only problem I have, is that Andy and I seem to be agreeing more and more on the topic of compilers <GRIN>. I suggest that from now on, I include Andy's standard Hitech plug with mine, and he includes my MPC plug with his. hehehehe. -- Friendly Regards /"\ \ / Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN EraseMEtjaartwasp.co.za / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL |--------------------------------------------------| | WASP International | |R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development| |--------------------------------------------------| | Mobile : RemoveMEtjaartEraseMEEraseMEsms.wasp.co.za (160 text chars) | | 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 | |--------------------------------------------------|

Tjaart wrote: >I think (hope) that everyone will agree that there are only two >serious compilers for Mchip so far (MPC and Hitech). I also >think that these discussions will benefit both these companies >(and they deserve it too). Why do you (and I think most on the list) ignore the IAR C-compiler. It's very new, ok and maybe expensive. But the workbench and the simulator are great. Projects with many files are no problem, different releases (debug, release, test, ..) are no problem and if you are able to generate the first code in a short period, you can buy an expensive compiler. Another advantages are the very good support and there are other compilers for different controllers available (under the same workbench). Ok, the code could be better, but IAR is working on it. I think a few more releases and it's as efficient as the hitech compiler. Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>As soon as I get my hands on a 16C877 (16F877 - whatever), I am >going to try MPC on them too. Providing they are no more expensive >than the (already pricey) 16C77, of course. My source had them 10 cents more in big quantities. They look like a '77 to the compiler, with a few extra features borrowed from the 17C parts (I2C Master), and 256 byte internal EE. Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

>The only problem I have, is that Andy and I seem to be agreeing >more and more on the topic of compilers <GRIN>. I suggest that >from now on, I include Andy's standard Hitech plug with mine, >and he includes my MPC plug with his. hehehehe. Sounds like IAR is going to try to be a serious contender. From what I understand from the Mchip guys, IAR worked with them to make the newest parts (18C??) more compiler-friendly. IMHO, the the IAR IDE stinks worse the CCS's. That is, if it's anything like their Z-80 product. Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

Martin Mayr wrote: > Tjaart wrote: > >I think (hope) that everyone will agree that there are only two > >serious compilers for Mchip so far (MPC and Hitech). I also > >think that these discussions will benefit both these companies > >(and they deserve it too). > > Why do you (and I think most on the list) ignore the IAR C-compiler. > It's very new, ok and maybe expensive. But the workbench and the > simulator are great. I don't know about MPC or the Hitech compiler, but IAR requires dongles on its AVR and I would guess the PIC compiler. I can appreciate their wanting to protect their software, but I wish they would find a better way than dongles. If you don't mind the nuisance, it's worth considering. Mark Walsh

>I don't know about MPC or the Hitech compiler, but IAR requires >dongles on its AVR and I would guess the PIC compiler. I can >appreciate their wanting to protect their software, but I wish they >would find a better way than dongles. You know how much hassle I had trying to get the dongle to work on my machine (a 233 Dell)?!?! I lost a WHOLE WEEK with the stupid thing. Dongles are BADDDD for business. Andy \-----------------/ \ /---\ / \ | | / Andy Kunz \ /---\ / Montana Design /---------+ +---------\ http://www.montanadesign.com | / |----|___|----| \ | \/___| * |___\/ Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!

any one have the url for the IAR c-compiler regards henrik -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Martin Mayr <RemoveMEmartin_mayrspam_OUTKILLspamHOTMAIL.COM> Til: RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <EraseMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Dato: 31. marts 1999 07:58 Emne: Re: The Best C Compiler {Quote hidden}>Tjaart wrote: >>I think (hope) that everyone will agree that there are only two >>serious compilers for Mchip so far (MPC and Hitech). I also >>think that these discussions will benefit both these companies >>(and they deserve it too). > >Why do you (and I think most on the list) ignore the IAR C-compiler. >It's very new, ok and maybe expensive. But the workbench and the >simulator are great. Projects with many files are no problem, different >releases (debug, release, test, ..) are no problem and if you are able >to generate the first code in a short period, you can buy an expensive >compiler. Another advantages are the very good support and there are >other compilers for different controllers available (under the same >workbench). >Ok, the code could be better, but IAR is working on it. I think a few >more releases and it's as efficient as the hitech compiler. >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >

Hi, the original opinion was: it is better to fetch a small loan from your bank or own budget and with this afford Hi-Tech C compiler (for $750), than buy CCS for $99 and pay the same amount practically every year due to their upgrade policy. On the other hand, this way the perspective is about 6 year. Who knows whether he/she will work with PIC's also after 6 years? Such way the decision process is multi-factorial and depends far more factors than the quality (also not simple to describe exactly) of the software and the support. Individuals also tend to treat the importance of support differently (I personally handle it as a last resort, bcus for the cost of a call I could buy a new software...). This is a well-known problem: can you compare vectors if the different element pairs have not all the same relation? It depends on weight factors then, and they - as said - tend to diverge. This is my $0.02 word. Imre On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Andy Kunz wrote: {Quote hidden}> Agree to what? > > At 08:51 AM 4/2/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Theoretically agree. > > > >However, that "small loan" equals for me the total of my quarterly salary. > >No feed, no water, no flat. :-(((( Simply I can not afford. Such way I > >must accept CCS and mainly CVASM (for free). > > > >Imre > >