Post by thread:C?

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'C?'
2000\01\14@090654 by Terry A. Steen

I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the registers, files, code, bits, and the like... but, it takes a long time to code that way. I use the MPLAB for my coding and want to start using a C compiler. I just want to hear what people out there use. What's good, cheap, and prefered - usable with MPLAB? Thanks, Terry ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sent from the desk of: Terry Allen Steen, EE spam_OUTengineeringTakeThisOuTmarinapower.com 332 McLaws Circle, Ste 111 757-258-8800 (Voice) Williamsburg, Va 23185 757-258-8805 (FAX) ----------------------------------------------------------------- !I AM A WHALE MAIL USER! If you have a large file to send, goto http://www.whalemail.com send them to: mplengineer Give me your account and I will use it also ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our web-site: http://www.marinapower.com -----------------------------------------------------------------

2000\01\14@093159 by Michael Rigby-Jones

part 0 6772 bytes Good: Hitech C <A HREF="http://www.htsoft.com" TARGET="_blank">www.htsoft.com</A> Bytecraft <A HREF="http://www.bytecraft.com" TARGET="_blank">www.bytecraft.com</A> IAR: <A HREF="http://www.iar.com/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.iar.com/</A> (not sure about their PIC compiler, but their 8051 stuff is pretty good) Cheap: CCS <A HREF="http://www.ccsinfo.com" TARGET="_blank">www.ccsinfo.com</A> FED C <A HREF="http://www.fored.co.uk/" TARGET="_blank">www.fored.co.uk/</A> Free: CC5X <A HREF="http://www.bknd.com/cc5x/index.shtml" TARGET="_blank">www.bknd.com/cc5x/index.shtml</A> These are only the ones I know about or have had some experience with.  I use Hitech and I'm very happy with it. Note that good and cheap are not always very compatible goals with emmbedded compilers. Mike <UL> {Original Message removed}

2000\01\14@094230 by James Paul

Terry, For my money, (~$99.00), CCS is the best bargain. I've only tried one other compiler myself, but I didn't really care for it. I couldn't justify the several hundred dollars it cost for the compiler versus the amount of time I was working with PIC's at the time. I found the CCS compiler, and it's cost was in my acceptable range, so I bought it. It has gotten even better over the last few years. I'm not sure if CCS is totally or even close to being ANSI compliant, but for what I do and have done in the past, that is a don't care issue for me. Anyway, my vote is for CCS 'C'. BTW, CCS has three versions of it's compiler. There is the PCM version for the 14 bit parts, (The one I have). PCB (I think) for the 12 bit parts, and PCW which combines both the lower versions plus adds an editor and a programming environment for windows. IMHO you can't go wrong if you want a good compiler at low cost. You can pay hundreds more for other packages, but why you'd want to, I don't know. Hope this helps you out. Regards, Jim On Fri, 14 January 2000, "Terry A. Steen" wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the > registers, files, code, bits, and the like... but, it takes a long time to > code that way. I use the MPLAB for my coding and want to start using a C > compiler. I just want to hear what people out there use. What's good, > cheap, and prefered - usable with MPLAB? > > Thanks, > > Terry > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Sent from the desk of: > Terry Allen Steen, EE .....engineeringKILLspam@spam@marinapower.com > 332 McLaws Circle, Ste 111 757-258-8800 (Voice) > Williamsburg, Va 23185 757-258-8805 (FAX) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > !I AM A WHALE MAIL USER! If you have a large file to send, goto > http://www.whalemail.com send them to: mplengineer > Give me your account and I will use it also > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit our web-site: http://www.marinapower.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------- jimKILLspamjpes.com

2000\01\14@100521 by Peter Keller

part 0 5920 bytes
x-html> IAR: correct. I think that's the best compiler on market.
But: it costs US$3'000.- for a single license, protected by a dongle !!!!
For PICs I'm using CCS, but you have to become very familiar with it.
Peter

Michael Rigby-Jones schrieb:

Good:
Hitech C http://www.htsoft.com
Bytecraft http://www.bytecraft.com
IAR: http://www.iar.com/ (not sure about their PIC compiler, but their 8051 stuff is pretty good)
Cheap:
CCS http://www.ccsinfo.com
FED C http://www.fored.co.uk/
Free:
CC5X http://www.bknd.com/cc5x/index.shtml
These are only the ones I know about or have had some experience with. I use Hitech and I'm very happy with it.
Note that good and cheap are not always very compatible goals with emmbedded compilers.
Mike
{Original Message removed}

2000\01\14@102604 by Giles L. Honeycutt

I was of the same opinion, but a coworker has started using the CCS and my opinion has changed. Having the ability to program in C is not that much of an advantage, but all the functions they supply are a great advantage. Example, I2C code, using the hardware or bit banging it. But many times we refer back to the assembly output to see what it is doing. I would never recommend to anyone to use C for a pic to avoid learning ASM. Best regards, Giles -----Original Message----- I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the registers, files, code, bits, and the like... but, it takes a long time to code that way. I use the MPLAB for my coding and want to start using a C compiler. I just want to hear what people out there use. What's good, cheap, and prefered - usable with MPLAB? Thanks, Terry

2000\01\14@120225 by Jeffrey Siegel

There have been a few responses to Terry's request...but one of the important parts of the question was whether the compiler works with MPLAB. It isn't clear to me whether the suggested compilers work with MPLAB - and I have the same need as Terry right now (MPLAB usable). > -----Original Message----- > I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the {Quote hidden}> registers, files, code, bits, and the like... but, it takes a long time to > code that way. I use the MPLAB for my coding and want to start using a C > compiler. I just want to hear what people out there use. What's good, > cheap, and prefered - usable with MPLAB? > > Thanks, > > Terry > >

2000\01\14@135641 by Don McKenzie

> -----Original Message----- > I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the > registers, files, code, bits, and the like... but, it takes a long time to > code that way. I use the MPLAB for my coding and want to start using a C > compiler. I just want to hear what people out there use. What's good, > cheap, and prefered - usable with MPLAB? There is a dated review of four PIC C compilers at: http://www.dontronics.com/ccs.html Don McKenzie .....donKILLspam.....dontronics.com http://www.dontronics.com World's Largest Range of Atmel/AVR and PICmicro Hardware and Software. Free Basic Compiler and Programmer http://www.dontronics.com/runavr.html

2000\01\14@135847 by Peter Anderson

I had pretty much the same feeling as you. ÊC on a 12C509 seemed foolish. However, about a year ago I began fooling with the CCS PCM compiler and I have changed my mind. ÊWith a bit of common sense it generates code that is more efficient than I can write, life is a whole lot easier and I can write code much faster. However, my feeling is that there is no substitute for a knowledge of the machine and assembly. The CCS compiler includes many modules (I2C, RS232, ADC) etc which to some may be a blessing. I opted to simply use the basic C and develop my own functional modules. ÊIn part, "I like the control" and I was looking for some degree of portability to other compilers. ÊIf you were to read the CCS user exchange one might assume the compiler has endless bugs. ÊIn fact, by avoiding the modules supplied by CCS I just haven't seen too many bugs. ÊUsually, what I think is a bug turns out to be a foolish error on my part. The CCS compiler integrates nicely with both MPLab and with RF Solution's ICE-PIC. ÊI have also used it with the In Circuit Debugger for the PIC16F87X. Some code samples are at http://www.phanderson.com/PIC/PICC/ Peter H. Anderson, http://www.phanderson.com, EraseMEphaspam_OUTTakeThisOuTphanderson.com ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: "Terry A. Steen" <engineeringspam_OUTMARINAPOWER.COM> Sent: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:14:44 -0500 To: @spam@PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: C? I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the Sign up for Free and Permanent E-mail at http://www.Africana.com, which increases its donation to African-American education EACH TIME you check your mail or visit a page on the web site.

2000\01\14@155931 by Erik Reikes

You guys might check out the cc5 compiler by Bengt Knudsen. There's a free version that basically has all of the features of the full, but limited object executable size (1024 words). For $100 you get one that goes up to 2K, and $250 I believe is the full 8k. Its a pretty simple tool without all the bells and whistles, but it works for me. It costs nothing to check it out. http://www.bknd.com/ is the address. -Erik Reikes At 01:46 PM 1/14/00 -0500, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>I had pretty much the same feeling as you. C on a 12C509 seemed foolish. > >However, about a year ago I began fooling with the CCS PCM compiler and I >have changed my mind. With a bit of common sense it generates code that is >more efficient than I can write, life is a whole lot easier and I can write >code much faster. > >However, my feeling is that there is no substitute for a knowledge of the >machine and assembly. > >The CCS compiler includes many modules (I2C, RS232, ADC) etc which to some >may be a blessing. I opted to simply use the basic C and develop my own >functional modules. In part, "I like the control" and I was looking for >some degree of portability to other compilers. If you were to read the CCS >user exchange one might assume the compiler has endless bugs. In fact, by >avoiding the modules supplied by CCS I just haven't seen too many bugs. > Usually, what I think is a bug turns out to be a foolish error on my part. > >The CCS compiler integrates nicely with both MPLab and with RF Solution's >ICE-PIC. I have also used it with the In Circuit Debugger for the PIC16F87X. > >Some code samples are at http://www.phanderson.com/PIC/PICC/ > >Peter H. Anderson, http://www.phanderson.com, KILLspamphaKILLspamphanderson.com > > >---- Begin Original Message ---- > >From: "Terry A. Steen" <RemoveMEengineeringTakeThisOuTMARINAPOWER.COM> >Sent: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:14:44 -0500 >To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU >Subject: C? > > >I have always been a bit-man... I prefer to have total control over all the > > >Sign up for Free and Permanent E-mail at http://www.Africana.com, which >increases its donation to African-American education EACH TIME you check >your mail or visit a page on the web site. Erik Reikes Software Engineer Xsilogy, Inc. TakeThisOuTereikesEraseMEspam_OUTxsilogy.com ph : (858) 535-5113 fax : (858) 535-5163 cell : (858) 663-1206

2000\01\18@160102 by Edson Brusque

> But many times we refer back to the assembly output to see what it is doing. > I would never recommend to anyone to use C for a pic to avoid learning ASM. Learning PIC's Assembly is a necessity for anyone working seriously with that PIC. Same for any microcontroller. BTW, I'm using CCS now, and I'm using very few of it's own functions. I preffer to write things like: INTCON.GIEA = 1; So, I've developed an include file with these definitions and I can have total control of the registers. Talking about C (but off-topic) is someone here using the tools from KEIL? Best regards, Brusque +----------------------+ | Edson Brusque | | Tech Development | | http://www.citronics.com.br | +----------------------+

2000\01\19@073835 by Mordred of Logris

--- Edson Brusque <RemoveMEbrusqueTakeThisOuTFLYNET.COM.BR> wrote: > > But many times we refer back to the assembly > output to see what it is > doing. > > I would never recommend to anyone to use C for a > pic to avoid learning > ASM. > > Learning PIC's Assembly is a necessity for > anyone working seriously with > that PIC. Same for any microcontroller. > Yes, and for that matter, for any computer, be it PC or Apple or anything. > BTW, I'm using CCS now, and I'm using very few > of it's own functions. I > preffer to write things like: > > INTCON.GIEA = 1; Yeah, that's nice, but you know, if you've had a look at the compiled listing it does exactly the same. And in fact you are kinda *losing* from such usage, because writing " enable_interrupts(global) " is more readable, and what is most important, it is platform independant! When you write something in C (I use ccs too), you can sometimes just change the #include, and recompile for a different PIC. This is one very important thing to notice, when using high-level languages. Same situation we have on the PC, right? ===== May the ground never receive thee ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...