Searching \ for '[PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers' 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/languages.htm?key=c
Search entire site for: 'Low-cost PIC C compilers'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers'
2007\06\26@170050 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.

2007\06\26@171042 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 6/26/07, Matthew Mucker <spam_OUTmatthewTakeThisOuTspammucker.net> wrote:
> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.

http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/

But I don't know how complete they are for PICs.

2007\06\26@171247 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Matthew Mucker wrote:

> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.

I've tried MiKroC for 12/16 series, and seemed to work fine enough.

For 18F series, MCC18 is good enough and is free for evaluation... i.e.
it loses some features but is still acceptable.


--
Ciao, Dario
--
ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
--
http://www.adpm.tk

2007\06\26@171817 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:00 -0500, Matthew Mucker wrote:
> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.


Which PIC?

For the 18F and 30F/24x/33F MChip gives out a free version of their C
compiler.

For the 16F/12F there is PICClite, a free device/size limited version of
HiTech's C compiler.

Personally, I'd recommend just starting with the 18F or even better 30F
series of PICs, much less headache in the long run.

TTYL

2007\06\26@172329 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Alex Harford wrote:

> http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/
> But I don't know how complete they are for PICs.

A recent thread on Forum.microchip.com showed that is generates a very
cumbersome code for a Switch() statement.

--
Ciao, Dario
--
ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
--
http://www.adpm.tk

2007\06\26@173832 by Timothy Weber

face picon face
BoostC/SourceBoost.  $5 for a beginning registered version, I think?  I
use it for commercial projects now.

Matthew Mucker wrote:
> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.
>

--
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org

2007\06\26@174442 by novakd

picon face
> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.


SourceBoost is excellent.

http://www.sourceboost.com/

Very affordable too!

David

2007\06\26@175137 by Zik Saleeba

face picon face
SDCC is pretty usable for the 16F series. I should know - I added the
support for most of that series.

I've used it for both hobby and commercial projects and it's ok, if a
little "betaish". It doesn't create the most efficient code ever - for
that you'll need to pay money for a commercial compiler.

Cheers,
Zik

On 6/27/07, Alex Harford <.....harfordKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Matthew Mucker <matthewspamKILLspammucker.net> wrote:
> > Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> > are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.
>
> http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/
>
> But I don't know how complete they are for PICs.
> -

2007\06\26@191527 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 6/26/07, Zik Saleeba <.....zikKILLspamspam.....zikzak.net> wrote:
> SDCC is pretty usable for the 16F series. I should know - I added the
> support for most of that series.
>
> I've used it for both hobby and commercial projects and it's ok, if a
> little "betaish". It doesn't create the most efficient code ever - for
> that you'll need to pay money for a commercial compiler.
>
> Cheers,
> Zik
>

I've been using it for a couple years, and in that time it has improved rapidly.

For someone just beginning, I'd recommend considering a
microcontroller with GCC support.  This may not be a PIC.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
EraseMEmarkragesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmidwesttelecine.com

2007\06\27@003725 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Mark Rages wrote:

> For someone just beginning, I'd recommend considering a
> microcontroller with GCC support.  This may not be a PIC.
>
gcc doesn't exactly come with a beginner-class IDE, does it?
(Possibly excepting "Arduino")  For someone just beginning,
maybe a set of CLI-based tools aren't the best idea?  (OTOH,
if they're going to do embedded programming, "leaving the GUI
nest"  might be a good thing.)

A fair number of the commercial C compilers have "evaluation
versions" that produce reasonable amounts of code for a
reasonable number of processors for "hobbyist" use.  I've
been using CC5X a bit, for instance.  Hi-TECH recently
expanded the PICC-lite capabilities quite a bit as well.

And there's JAL, which is enough C-like to be usable for
a C programmer, I think.  Though you lose any portability
that you might have been aiming for by using a HLL.

BillW

2007\06\27@005420 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 6/26/07, William Chops Westfield <westfwspamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Mark Rages wrote:
>
> > For someone just beginning, I'd recommend considering a
> > microcontroller with GCC support.  This may not be a PIC.
> >
> gcc doesn't exactly come with a beginner-class IDE, does it?
> (Possibly excepting "Arduino")  For someone just beginning,
> maybe a set of CLI-based tools aren't the best idea?  (OTOH,
> if they're going to do embedded programming, "leaving the GUI
> nest"  might be a good thing.)
>

It doesn't get much simpler than the command-line for compiling simple
programs.  You only have to deal with one thing at a time:  Editing,
compiling, programming the chip.  No obscure configuration screens, no
magic.  You can easily get help from the Internet by cut+pasting the
commands you are using (and errors you generate).  Bigger programs can
be more complex, but by then you'll hopefully have learned about make.

Anyway, the compiler and IDE are separate programs in any sane
environment, so I'm not sure how choosing GCC makes a difference in
the IDE.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
@spam@markragesKILLspamspammidwesttelecine.com

2007\06\27@012055 by John Chung

picon face
IDE for begineers does not help them understand most
of the options that the compiler has. For example asm
listing and map listing. Which happens to be important
for MCU development. Insulation from such details are
just a hinderance. Once they understood the compiler's
capability then IDE should be of their own choice.

John


--- Mark Rages <KILLspammarkragesKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\06\27@084139 by Tomas Larsson

flavicon
face
WIZ-C starts at some £30:- or so, supports most PIC's
Look at http://www.fored.co.uk

With best regards

Tomas Larsson
Sweden
http://www.tlec.se
http://www.ebaman.com

Verus Amicus Est Tamquam Alter Idem

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu
> [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Mucker
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers
>
> Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial
> products I've seen are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.
>
>

2007\06\27@120917 by Rich Satterlee

flavicon
face
Hi-

I too have been using cc5x for awhile.  The limitations of the code is in the
size of the source files. While not the clearest of documentation, I've been able
to *LINK* code greater than the free compiler restrictions.  Errrr, let me ammend
that. The documentation on the compiler is really pretty good, it's the linker
stuff that was a little less straightforward.

I run cc5x from the command line.  One of the comments that I have in most of
my programs looks something like this......

/* COMMAND LINE FOR THIS:
  ..\cc5x  -a -I.. elink.c
*/

/* COMMAND LINE OPTIONS:
  -a : generate assembly file
  -I\my\files : include files path (multiple -I<path> is supported)
  -CA : generate COD file for debugging
  .. all options is printed when starting the compiler without arguments
*/

I personally like the mixed assembly/C code listing format for debugging. I then
use this as the basis for the disassembly view in the MPLAB.  Your tastes
may vary.

The restrictions state:
"The free edition supports up to 1024 instructions in any single C module. Several
modules can be linked together by MPLINK (the Microchip linker) to build larger
programs."

And that's what I have done.  I can usually fit a module into the C sized program
and then link them together. This is the part of the documentation that didn't
seem too clear. But it was worked out.

Also, some "standard" C constructs are not compiled by the package.  I found it
somewhat irritating when things like:

 switch( state++ ) {

fails to compile, but usually one is able to make some code that will do it just
about as well.

It also looks like the configuration files used by the compiler can be manipulated
to support a PIC device that is not in their library.  Although I haven't had to
do it, if there is a new wizzybang from Microchip, then I think I have a chance to
modify an existing configuration file to compile code for the new part.

I personally have used the compiler for parts ranging from the 10F200 to the 16F877A
series.  Not that it doesn't support more, it's just the range that I can attest to.

The price is right, downloads quickly, and produces resonable and tight code.

Hope that this little observation helps!

Cheers,

  Rich S.

---- Original Message ----
From:                William Chops Westfield
Date:                Tue 6/26/07 21:50
To:                Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject:        Re: [PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers


On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Mark Rages wrote:

> For someone just beginning, I'd recommend considering a
> microcontroller with GCC support.  This may not be a PIC.
>
gcc doesn't exactly come with a beginner-class IDE, does it?
(Possibly excepting "Arduino")  For someone just beginning,
maybe a set of CLI-based tools aren't the best idea?  (OTOH,
if they're going to do embedded programming, "leaving the GUI
nest"  might be a good thing.)

A fair number of the commercial C compilers have "evaluation
versions" that produce reasonable amounts of code for a
reasonable number of processors for "hobbyist" use.  I've
been using CC5X a bit, for instance.  Hi-TECH recently
expanded the PICC-lite capabilities quite a bit as well.

And there's JAL, which is enough C-like to be usable for
a C programmer, I think.  Though you lose any portability
that you might have been aiming for by using a HLL.

BillW

2007\06\27@121800 by Bob Blick

face picon face
--- Tomas Larsson <tomasEraseMEspam.....tlec.se> wrote:

> WIZ-C starts at some £30:- or so, supports most
> PIC's

Great name too. I can imagine the sales promotion
"Take a WIZ and your problems are solved" :)

Reminds me of when Hollywood didn't understand why
"Free Willy" might not immediately register as a movie
for kids everywhere on the planet.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2007\06\29@030437 by Eugene Rosenzweig

flavicon
face

> IDE for begineers does not help them understand most
> of the options that the compiler has. For example asm
> listing and map listing. Which happens to be important
> for MCU development. Insulation from such details are
> just a hinderance. Once they understood the compiler's
> capability then IDE should be of their own choice.
>
> John
I would say its the other way around - a beginner would use an IDE for
simple projects and *then* learn and understand other options. Anyhow,
there seems to be an opinion that an IDE dumbs down the compiler while
this is not necessarily the case. There isn't any reason you cannot get
access to any compiler options through an IDE.


Eugene.

2007\06\30@012452 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 6/27/07, Rich Satterlee <EraseMEpicspamsatterlees.com> wrote:
> Hi-
>
> I too have been using cc5x for awhile.  The limitations of the code is in the
> size of the source files. While not the clearest of documentation, I've been able
> to *LINK* code greater than the free compiler restrictions.  Errrr, let me ammend
> that. The documentation on the compiler is really pretty good, it's the linker
> stuff that was a little less straightforward.
>
> I run cc5x from the command line.  One of the comments that I have in most of
> my programs looks something like this......
>
> /* COMMAND LINE FOR THIS:
>    ..\cc5x  -a -I.. elink.c
> */
>

Why not put that in a Makefile?

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
RemoveMEmarkragesEraseMEspamEraseMEmidwesttelecine.com

2007\06\30@094716 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mark Rages wrote:

>> I run cc5x from the command line.  One of the comments that I have in most of
>> my programs looks something like this......
>>
>> /* COMMAND LINE FOR THIS:
>>    ..\cc5x  -a -I.. elink.c
>> */
>
> Why not put that in a Makefile?

Possibly overkill (unless someone already knows makefiles), but a simple
batch file with the same name as the C file would do that also nicely.

Gerhard

2007\06\30@174118 by Rich Satterlee

flavicon
face
Hiya-

Well, I sure do know make and some of it's varients. However for quick and dirty
little projects written in C, I usually only have one source file so a Makefile
is kind of redundant.  And, if it's been a little while since I used it, well
comments are cheap.  Usually, I just have one dos window for my vi editor, and
another with the compiler (I just use the F3 for a repeat).  

If there were multiple source files, then make makes sense......

 Cheers,

  Rich S.

---- Original Message ----
From:                Gerhard Fiedler
Date:                Sat 6/30/07 7:04
To:                RemoveMEpiclistspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu
Subject:        Re: [PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers

Mark Rages wrote:

>> I run cc5x from the command line.  One of the comments that I have in most of
>> my programs looks something like this......
>>
>> /* COMMAND LINE FOR THIS:
>>    ..\cc5x  -a -I.. elink.c
>> */
>
> Why not put that in a Makefile?

Possibly overkill (unless someone already knows makefiles), but a simple
batch file with the same name as the C file would do that also nicely.

Gerhard


'[PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers'
2007\07\01@104919 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 6/26/07, Dario Greggio <RemoveMEadpm.toTakeThisOuTspamspaminwind.it> wrote:
> Matthew Mucker wrote:
>
> > Does such a thing exist? The prices for the commercial products I've seen
> > are a bit beyond the reach of my hobbyist budget.
>
> I've tried MiKroC for 12/16 series, and seemed to work fine enough.
>
> For 18F series, MCC18 is good enough and is free for evaluation... i.e.
> it loses some features but is still acceptable.
>

If we go back to the original question, I think it is best to go with
18F or dsPIC
and use the MPLAB C18 or C30 student version if people want to use
C compiler with hobbist project for PIC. The student version is good enough
for hobbyist use. It does not have code size limit.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...