Searching \ for '[PIC] Compiler recommendations' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Compiler recommendations'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Compiler recommendations'
2002\07\27@193522 by Derek Cowburn

flavicon
face
Opinions Wanted!

Please share your opinions on the following development tools...

A. CCS C
B. HI-TECH C
C. PicBasic Pro
D. other

...with respect to...
1. Most inclusive library of examples.
2. Most PIC hardware support (ie hardware PWM, I2C, etc)

My criteria for the "best" development system is the one with the most
inclusive library of examples.  I find a good discussion group and BIG
libraries is the fastest way to achieve rapid development.

Thanks!

Derek Cowburn
spam_OUTdcowburnTakeThisOuTspamibtcorp.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\27@233451 by cdb

flavicon
face
Basic - have a look at BasicMicro http://www.basicmicro.com - there support
is excellent and the IDE comes with a ICD and Oscilloscope built in -
you do need their programmer for the IDC and Oscilloscope and
Terminal gadgets to work.

Drawback - it compiles a tokenised assembler and all maths are 32 bit
so its hex file is larger than one might want.

There are basic compilers that produce smaller files and listable ASM
files such as CelestialHorizons.

'C'
I use the C Pro compiler from Forest in the UK http://www.fored.co.uk -
produces reasonable size hex files, has a built in simulator will do
the 18 series as well. Debugger requires an add on piece of hardware
and only works on the 877. Allows in the Pro version multiple linked
projects also has a Rapid Development facility does include an ASM
stand alone compiler and you can simulate/inject wave forms buttons
etc. Unlockable demo can be downloaded (30day)

Drawback- The major drawback is the IDE's error checking, it doesn't
pick up missing semicolons or braces and if these are missing can
cause some strange error messages, or, it will exit before your eyes!

There is an extremely good, but not cheap Pascal Compiler from a
German company, produces tight code, you can download a size limited
demo (2K IIRC) and obviously purchasing unlocks it

Drawback - They no longer support the PIC compiler only the AVR
version

The best C compiler is about U$1300.00 so might be expensive if your
unlikely to get you outlay back.

Colin
--
cdb, .....bodgy1KILLspamspam@spam@optusnet.com.au on 28/07/2002

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\28@001848 by Tal Dayan

flavicon
face
We are using CCS C (PCM version) for 16F876. As a C compiler, it is pretty
poor. It missed errors that any decent ANSI C compiler that was written in
the last 10 years would catch easily. For example, if you have an 'int
foo()' function and does not return a value, it does not complain. Nor if
instead of passing a struct, you pass a pointer. Very lame indeed. Reminds
me of the old K&R type C compilers of 20 years ago. Also, the version we got
when we purchased it about two month ago was buggy (e.g.. generating wrong
code when page switching is required or a buggy definition of the assert()
macro). When we downloaded the latest version about 2 weeks ago, the bugs we
were aware of seem to be fixed.

Nevertheless, we are going to stick to it. The main reason is the very good
PIC extensions it provides. More or less it takes care of all the PIC
specific details and provide an high level abstraction of the PIC
configuration, interrupts and I/O operations. Generated code seems to pretey
good with various PIC specific optimization such minimization of stack
nesting level.

As far as I know they don't have a trial version.

Tal

> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\28@021127 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
You'll likely get a lot of argument about your opinion of what makes for
the best/fastest development...  but that's pretty much the same thing I
based my decision on.  CCS has a very active forum on their web site.
Library support for all functions as well as i2c EEPROM, keypad, LCD, ADC,
lots of other stuff.  I like it.  Of course some will also point out that
it's not true, pure, 100% ANSI C, and they're quite right.  If you're
looking for something ANSI compliant, I think Hi-Tech or IAR are closer.

I have not tried PICBasic or Hi-Tech, only CCS, several other C compilers
and of course very early on a BASIC Stamp.

Just my own personal opinions, which is what you were asking for.

Dale
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
         - Arnold Edinborough


On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Derek Cowburn wrote:

> Opinions Wanted!

> My criteria for the "best" development system is the one with the most
> inclusive library of examples.  I find a good discussion group and BIG
> libraries is the fastest way to achieve rapid development.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\28@094916 by Victor Faria

flavicon
face
HI,DEREK
I like picbasic pro.
easy to use -support is great from melabs-also there is the picbasic list
which is great.-lots of examples all over the web.-supports many chips-and
upgrades are only $10
there are several ide front ends for it the most popular being microcode
studio by mecanique micro code studio also comes with an icd you get to see
you code running on your pc and in basic.
so for the support,the $$$,the ease of use,pic basicpro takes my vote.
check out some of these links
and you may want to look at the picbasic list archives
at the melabs site and do a search on you question or ask the list.
http://www.rentron.com
http://www.melabs.com
http://www.melabs.com/resources/index.htm
microengineeringlabs.com/resources/cgi-bin/board-search.cgi
hope this helps
Victor Faria

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\28@155210 by John Markland

flavicon
face
   My vote is for PicBasic-Pro.
  PicBasic-Pro from melabs is working great on both the 16f877 the 18f452.
I haven't seen any other tools that are as easy to use as this product.  If
you want to add an IDE, look at microcode studio. The Pic-Basic list is also
a very active and useful plus.
   When I first purchased PicBasic-Pro it was on a trial basis just to get
used to the pic architecture. I assumed that I would need to update to a
more expensive c-compiler later, but that day has never come for over two
years.  The other advantage for me is that non-c users can easily follow the
code, and that helps me a lot when dealing with my boss who is brilliant at
power hardware design but does like c.

John Markland



{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\28@175216 by Tal Dayan

flavicon
face
> Of course some will also point out that
> it's not true, pure, 100% ANSI C, and they're quite right.

The main point is not it is not a pure ANSI C but that it lakes
elementary features that are available in most commercial C compilers
written
in the last 10 years or more.

For example, generating an error when a function that is declared as 'int
foo()'
does not return any value. Or, that it does not complain when you call a
function
with a pointer instead of a structure.

Tal



> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\28@181727 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tal Dayan wrote:

>> Of course some will also point out that
>> it's not true, pure, 100% ANSI C, and they're quite right.
>
>The main point is not it is not a pure ANSI C but that it lakes
>elementary features that are available in most commercial C compilers
>written in the last 10 years or more.
>
>For example, generating an error when a function that is declared as 'int
>foo()' does not return any value. Or, that it does not complain when you
>call a function with a pointer instead of a structure.

imho the compiler's job is to compile whatever the programmer throws at
it. Syntax checking is another tool's job, for example (c)lint and many
others. I have not so fond memories of jumping through hoops on fire to
make a Microsoft compiler and assembler do what I wanted (non-standard
boot code for embedded). It insisted on 'strong typing' in assembler and
used segment registers that did not exist in my environment. Yeah, right.
The Borland toolchains dealt with it directly without trying hard. I don't
want the compiler to check what I pass it as a structure ...

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\28@193839 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Derek Cowburn wrote:

> Opinions Wanted!
>
> Please share your opinions on the following development tools...
>
> A. CCS C
> B. HI-TECH C
> C. PicBasic Pro
> D. other

SDCC http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/

SDCC is a GPL'd C compiler that supports several microcontrollers -
including the midrange PIC's.

>
> ...with respect to...
> 1. Most inclusive library of examples.
> 2. Most PIC hardware support (ie hardware PWM, I2C, etc)
>
> My criteria for the "best" development system is the one with the most
> inclusive library of examples.  I find a good discussion group and BIG
> libraries is the fastest way to achieve rapid development.

SDCC has very little in the way of examples.

I do have this

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/ledREADME
http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/led-1.tar.gz

And a screen shot of gpsim simulating the code from this project:

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/led-1.jpg

Terry Porter also has a screen shot of his sample SDCC program:
http://w3w.arafuraconnect.com.au/~tp/electronics/micro/gpsim.png

I also "ported" Bob Blick's LCD driver to SDCC. Here's a screen shot:

http://www.dattalo.com/bblick_lcd.jpg

At some point Bob was going to release this code under GPL. When he does,
I'll submit an SDCC patch. Incidently, it was trivial to "port" Bob's code
since it was written originally for HiTech. Going from one ANSI C compiler
to another is straight forward (all I had to do was change the non-ansi
bit declaration).

As more people use SDCC, I expect more sample projects to come into
existance. At the moment there are just a handful of us.

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\28@201518 by Tal Dayan

flavicon
face
Peter, if I understand your point, you don't want any error or warning
messages from the compiler. If the program is valid, it should generate
correct code. If it is not, it should just go on silently and
produce unexpected results.

What about referring to an non existing variable, should it just
pick an arbitrary value ? How about calling a function with one
argument missing, should it just use an arbitrary value
instead ?

Correct me if I wrong but I have hard time to believe that
the Borland C compiler would not flag out this kind of basic errors.

Tal

> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\28@223649 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
You lie to your computer?

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter L. Peres" <.....plpKILLspamspam.....ACTCOM.CO.IL>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC] Compiler recommendations


snip.....
> I don't
> want the compiler to check what I pass it as a
structure ...
>
> Peter
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is
archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for
details.
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\28@230919 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
I see...  those things haven't been a problem for me so far, I just keep
in mind what the function is supposed to be doing and write the code
accordingly.  I'm not a C programmer by trade, and in fact have only used
CCS extensively, so those are features I don't miss.  The other C
compilers I tried for the PIC sucked far worse, lacking even the
rudimentary capabilities required of simple programs.  I didn't try the
ones out of the price range of the average hobbyist.  So CCS may not be
ideal, but at $99 for the 14-bit compiler or I think $250 for the complete
IDE and 12- and 14-bit compilers, it seemed to be the clear winner for my
needs at the time.  And in regards to the OP's criteria, it dos have the
most extensive collection of built-in functions, libraries and examples I
saw out of the compilers I looked at.

Dale
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
         - Arnold Edinborough


On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tal Dayan wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\29@050838 by Tim Forcer

flavicon
face
At 05:11 29/07/2002, Tal Dayan wrote:

>  We are using CCS C (PCM version) for 16F876.
>  As a C compiler, it is pretty poor. It missed
>  errors that any decent ANSI C compiler that was
>  written in the last 10 years would catch easily.
>  ...

CCS C is not ANSI-compliant.  CCS make no claim of any kind about ANSI
(that I'm aware of).  IMO anyone who uses CCS C expecting it to be "real" C
is making a big mistake.  What CCS provide (IMO) is a relatively cheap and
extremely useful way of writing code for micros which is a LOT more
readable and (at source level) a LOT more compact than assembler.  Simply
being able to use "printf()" is surely a BIG bonus?

OK, there's lots of things you can't do with CCS C.  (And I can never
understand why the intermediate assembler it generates uses purely
numerical and absolute labels rather than useful mnemonics.)  But it's
still extremely useful.

>  Nevertheless, we are going to stick to it. The main
>  reason is the very good PIC extensions it provides.
>  More or less it takes care of all the PIC specific
>  details ...

Which is probably more important to many users than it being an ANSI compiler?

>  ... Generated code seems to pretey
>  good with various PIC specific optimization such
>  minimization of stack nesting level.

Given that many PICs have (in C terms) nearly zero resources for stacks,
this is quite an achievement!

I often recommend <http://www.embedded.com/98/9811/9811fe3.htm> to those
intrigued by issues of ANSI C and tiny micros.

>  As far as I know they don't have a trial version.

I'm sure they used to do this, but it certainly isn't mentioned on the
Website anymore.

HTH,



Tim Forcer               tmfspamspam_OUTecs.soton.ac.uk
Department of Electronics & Computer Science
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\29@175845 by Derek Cowburn

flavicon
face
Thank you to everyone who gave their opinions on compilers.

I decided on the PicBasic Pro for fastest development with good libraries
and PIC support.

Anyone who recommended otherwise may now openly ridicule me.  ;-)

-Derek

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\30@162148 by Cristian

flavicon
face
Is that better than LET PIC BASIC from Crownhill Associates Ltd
http://www.letbasic.com?

>I decided on the PicBasic Pro for fastest development with good libraries
>and PIC support.
>
>Anyone who recommended otherwise may now openly ridicule me.  ;-)
>
>-Derek

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\31@005710 by Derek Cowburn

flavicon
face
Seemed like PicBasicPro had more examples and active users. IMHO of course.

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\31@215049 by Cristian

flavicon
face
Derek, please take it like a question, like your question.
Your experience will allow me to spend my money for the best product.
Cristian

At 00:20 31/07/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Seemed like PicBasicPro had more examples and active users. IMHO of course.
>
>> Is that better than LET PIC BASIC from Crownhill Associates Ltd
>> http://www.letbasic.com?
>>
>> >I decided on the PicBasic Pro for fastest development with
>> good libraries
>> >and PIC support.
>> >-Derek

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...