>On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, xavier.montagne wrote:
>
>
>
>>For technical reason GCC cannot be ported to a PIC18 target....
>>
>>
>
>The only technical reason I know is the skill of the programmer performing
>the port. Instead, you could say that for 'practical' reasons it's
>difficult to port GCC to the PIC architecture and that SDCC is more
>suitable. When I first started the SDCC PIC port a few years ago, one of
>the reasons I chose it is because the GNUPIC tools already had support for
>an assembler, linker, and debugger. Targetting GCC would mean that a good
>portion of those would have to be recreated. (I know, technically you
>don't have to port gas and ld too, but to be consistant with the tool
>chain it's a good idea).
>
>I haven't performed any serious work with on SDCC in the last year and a
>half. I had taken to what I say would be 'alpha' level. Most of the basic
>stuff worked just fine. Since then, Vangelis Rokas has started a pic16
>port ( a sort of fork from the pic14 port). A few people have patched the
>pic14 port to work better with gplink. The last timed I tried the SDCC pic
>port, I was disappointed to see that the regression tests no longer pass.
>In fact, the compiler generates garbage. So now I'd say it sits in
>pre-alpha (operand types are no longer processed correctly for some
>reason). I don't know about the state of the pic16 port.
>
>I don't have any major near term plans to fix SDCC.
>
>If I did, this is what I'd do:
>
> 1) fix the current regression tests
> 2) move the pcode optimizer to the linker
> 3) move the call tree analyzer to the linker
> 4) move the register allocation to the linker
>
>
>Scott
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>

>On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, xavier.montagne wrote:
>
>
>
>>For technical reason GCC cannot be ported to a PIC18 target....
>>
>>
>
>The only technical reason I know is the skill of the programmer performing
>the port. Instead, you could say that for 'practical' reasons it's
>difficult to port GCC to the PIC architecture and that SDCC is more
>suitable. When I first started the SDCC PIC port a few years ago, one of
>the reasons I chose it is because the GNUPIC tools already had support for
>an assembler, linker, and debugger. Targetting GCC would mean that a good
>portion of those would have to be recreated. (I know, technically you
>don't have to port gas and ld too, but to be consistant with the tool
>chain it's a good idea).
>
>I haven't performed any serious work with on SDCC in the last year and a
>half. I had taken to what I say would be 'alpha' level. Most of the basic
>stuff worked just fine. Since then, Vangelis Rokas has started a pic16
>port ( a sort of fork from the pic14 port). A few people have patched the
>pic14 port to work better with gplink. The last timed I tried the SDCC pic
>port, I was disappointed to see that the regression tests no longer pass.
>In fact, the compiler generates garbage. So now I'd say it sits in
>pre-alpha (operand types are no longer processed correctly for some
>reason). I don't know about the state of the pic16 port.
>
>I don't have any major near term plans to fix SDCC.
>
>If I did, this is what I'd do:
>
> 1) fix the current regression tests
> 2) move the pcode optimizer to the linker
> 3) move the call tree analyzer to the linker
> 4) move the register allocation to the linker
>
>
>Scott
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>

>I am using the PICC18 from Hi-tech for the 18F series. They did a good job, and really is the #1 choice for commercial choice. But for hobbies, I really want to see a free available GCC based PICC18 platform C and C++ compilor comes out in next 2 years.
>Nice Dragon
>
>David P Harris <RemoveMEdpharrisTakeThisOuTTELUS.NET> wrote:
>Hi Scott-
>Well, I thought that I would probably concentrate on the 18F series from
>now on, and therefore, maybe a C compiler would be a good thing.
>
>So, do you think it is worth the effort for us to persue an 18F port (it
>should be more straight forward than the 14 and 16 series port)?
>
>And, if so, would it be better to concentrate on GCC or SDCC?
>David
>
>
>
>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Moreton [RemoveMEpeterTakeThisOuTspamRIL.ORG.UK]
>Sent: 22 March 2004 16:57
>To: EraseMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: [PIC]: GCC for the 18F series?
>
>
>I'm not convinced that running SETUP.EXE constitutes being
>easily cracked!
>
>My belief is that Microchip know full well that the C18
>compliler is actually free, and having a free C compiler
>encourages people to use the processors = sells more silicon
>for uChip. Yet, by not overtly publishing the availability of
>a free compiler, uChip don't upset the 3rd party compiler
>vendors too much. Further, any bona-fide company will purchase
>the C18 compiler, or a 3rd party compiler product to be able
>to get support, updates etc. So, everyone benefits. uChip sell
>silicon, the compiler vendors still sell compilers to
>professional developers, and the hobby community gets a free C
>compiler for the PIC18. Win win win.
>

> I'm not convinced that running SETUP.EXE constitutes being easily
> cracked!
>
> My belief is that Microchip know full well that the C18 compliler is
> actually free, and having a free C compiler encourages people to use the
> processors = sells more silicon for uChip. Yet, by not overtly
> publishing the availability of a free compiler, uChip don't upset the
> 3rd party compiler vendors too much. Further, any bona-fide company will
> purchase the C18 compiler, or a 3rd party compiler product to be able to
> get support, updates etc. So, everyone benefits. uChip sell silicon, the
> compiler vendors still sell compilers to professional developers, and
> the hobby community gets a free C compiler for the PIC18. Win win win.

> How about a virtual pc? Or a program that can track changes that the
> software made on the computer and then undo it?.. Just na idea
>
>
> Ricardo
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: pic microcontroller discussion list [TakeThisOuTPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU] Em
> nome de Peter Moreton
> Enviada: segunda-feira, 22 de Março de 2004 8:58
> Para: .....PICLISTRemoveMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Assunto: Re: [PIC]: GCC for the 18F series?
>
> Nah, Microchip C18 is free. Just download the 'evaluation version' and
> install it. When it konks-out in 60 days time, just install it again.
>