Searching \ for '[PIC]: RE: Using the PICs in-circuit debugger vs.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page:
Search entire site for: 'RE: Using the PICs in-circuit debugger vs.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: RE: Using the PICs in-circuit debugger vs. '
2000\12\20@052134 by Michael Rigby-Jones

IIRC the ICD uses one level of stack, and two port pins which can be used
when in non-debug mode.

The Microchip ICD is generaly slower than a true emulator, especialy with
regard to updating SFR's and Watched variables.  This can be minimised by
only updating what you need for debugging.  One gotcha is that the switching
regulator that is part of the ICD can inject a lot of noise into your
circuit, which can lead to odd things happening.  Use lots of decoupling.

However, you concerns about the ZIF socket are not totaly justified, you can
get emulator adapters for most package styles, such as PLCC, TQFP etc.
although they are quite pricey.



> {Original Message removed}

2000\12\20@102940 by Don Hyde

Here's another area where Microchip has come through for us as developers.

Their adapter sockets are the least expensive and the nicest to use of any
I've tried, and I've tried a lot of them.  If you're laying out a board for
SOP, TSSOP, or TQFP, and want to debug your code, these adapters will allow
you to plug in a DIP emulator quite nicely.  The adapters are stocked by
Digikey, so they're easy to get.  Most of the SOP and TSSOP ones are $75,
but you get three of the end that you solder down to the board, so the $75
will get you through 3 turns of copper.  You do have to be a little careful
about laying out tall parts too near the processor, or they will bump into
the adapter.

> {Original Message removed}

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