Post by thread:[PIC] MPLABX opinions

I have just revised my initial thoughts on MPLABX. I was wondering what others think of it too. I have found the debugging (with ICD3) to be pretty flaky. The ICD3 frequently hangs and you have to unplug it and plug it back in. It also seems to be pretty bad with the breakpoints, and looked like it was giving the wrong values for a few of them. I base this on the fact that I tried the exact same code/project/compiler/settings in MPLAB 8.7 and I get the right (i.e. expected) values for stuff and it hits pretty much all the breakpoints. I might be doing something wrong of course... Anyone experienced similar problems? What do people think in general of it? I think it looks great and I could really use some of the features, but I can't afford to be worrying about whether it's "telling me the truth" or having the ICD3 hang all the time (about 10 times in 2 hours) So I think I'll leave it until it's had a few more wrinkles ironed out of it, unless anyone tells a completely different story.

Hi Oli, When you use MPLAB 8.7, are you also using an ICD3 there? In other words, it sounds from your description like the problem is not with the ICD3 but with MPLABX. Do you agree? Sean On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Oli Glaser <spam_OUToli.glaserTakeThisOuTtalktalk.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> I have just revised my initial thoughts on MPLABX. I was wondering what > others think of it too. > > I have found the debugging (with ICD3) to be pretty flaky. The ICD3 > frequently hangs and you have to unplug it and plug it back in. It also > seems to be pretty bad with the breakpoints, and looked like it was > giving the wrong values for a few of them. > I base this on the fact that I tried the exact same > code/project/compiler/settings in MPLAB 8.7 and I get the right (i.e. > expected) values for stuff and it hits pretty much all the breakpoints. > I might be doing something wrong of course... > > Anyone experienced similar problems? > What do people think in general of it? > I think it looks great and I could really use some of the features, but > I can't afford to be worrying about whether it's "telling me the truth" > or having the ICD3 hang all the time (about 10 times in 2 hours) > So I think I'll leave it until it's had a few more wrinkles ironed out > of it, unless anyone tells a completely different story. > >

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Oli Glaser <.....oli.glaserKILLspam@spam@talktalk.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> I have just revised my initial thoughts on MPLABX. I was wondering what > others think of it too. > > I have found the debugging (with ICD3) to be pretty flaky. The ICD3 > frequently hangs and you have to unplug it and plug it back in. It also > seems to be pretty bad with the breakpoints, and looked like it was > giving the wrong values for a few of them. > I base this on the fact that I tried the exact same > code/project/compiler/settings in MPLAB 8.7 and I get the right (i.e. > expected) values for stuff and it hits pretty much all the breakpoints. > I might be doing something wrong of course... > > Anyone experienced similar problems? > What do people think in general of it? > I think it looks great and I could really use some of the features, but > I can't afford to be worrying about whether it's "telling me the truth" > or having the ICD3 hang all the time (about 10 times in 2 hours) > So I think I'll leave it until it's had a few more wrinkles ironed out > of it, unless anyone tells a completely different story. > > I don't have anything valuable to add. I didn't use the debugging capabilities, just C32 programming - and for that, it's great

> I have just revised my initial thoughts on MPLABX. I was wondering what > others think of it too. > > I have found the debugging (with ICD3) to be pretty flaky. The ICD3 > frequently hangs and you have to unplug it and plug it back in. It also > seems to be pretty bad with the breakpoints, and looked like it was > giving the wrong values for a few of them. > I base this on the fact that I tried the exact same > code/project/compiler/settings in MPLAB 8.7 and I get the right (i.e. > expected) values for stuff and it hits pretty much all the breakpoints. > I might be doing something wrong of course... > > Anyone experienced similar problems? > What do people think in general of it? > I think it looks great and I could really use some of the features, but > I can't afford to be worrying about whether it's "telling me the truth" > or having the ICD3 hang all the time (about 10 times in 2 hours) > So I think I'll leave it until it's had a few more wrinkles ironed out > of it, unless anyone tells a completely different story. <VBG> I did wonder to myself, when I saw your earlier post on MPLABX. It would probably be worth your while browsing the MPLABX sub forum on the Microchip Forums, to see what problems people have had. After all, it is still in beta test. http://www.microchip.com/forums/f238.aspx -- Scanned by iCritical.

On 01/06/2011 06:29, Sean Breheny wrote: > Hi Oli, > > When you use MPLAB 8.7, are you also using an ICD3 there? In other > words, it sounds from your description like the problem is not with > the ICD3 but with MPLABX. Do you agree? Yes, I agree - that's what I was trying to say (badly) I wasn't trying to suggest that the ICD3 was at fault. IME the ICD3 has always been very nice to use with MPLAB so I am assuming the issue is indeed with MPLABX.

On 01/06/2011 09:06, V G wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Oli Glaser<oli.glaserKILLspamtalktalk.net> wrote: > >> I have just revised my initial thoughts on MPLABX. I was wondering what >> others think of it too. >> >> I have found the debugging (with ICD3) to be pretty flaky. The ICD3 >> frequently hangs and you have to unplug it and plug it back in. It also >> seems to be pretty bad with the breakpoints, and looked like it was >> giving the wrong values for a few of them. >> I base this on the fact that I tried the exact same >> code/project/compiler/settings in MPLAB 8.7 and I get the right (i.e. >> expected) values for stuff and it hits pretty much all the breakpoints. >> I might be doing something wrong of course... >> >> Anyone experienced similar problems? >> What do people think in general of it? >> I think it looks great and I could really use some of the features, but >> I can't afford to be worrying about whether it's "telling me the truth" >> or having the ICD3 hang all the time (about 10 times in 2 hours) >> So I think I'll leave it until it's had a few more wrinkles ironed out >> of it, unless anyone tells a completely different story. >> >> > I don't have anything valuable to add. I didn't use the debugging > capabilities, just C32 programming - and for that, it's great. Yes, most of it does seem to work well and is nice to use. It's just the few problems I noticed that prevent me from feeling "comfortable" using it right now.

On 01/06/2011 09:43, .....alan.b.pearceKILLspam.....stfc.ac.uk wrote: > <VBG> I did wonder to myself, when I saw your earlier post on MPLABX. > > It would probably be worth your while browsing the MPLABX sub forum on the Microchip Forums, to see what problems people have had. After all, it is still in beta test. > > http://www.microchip.com/forums/f238.aspx :-) Yes, I should have heeded my own reservations a little while back... However, I actually downloaded it initially to compare behaviour with an issue I was having with MPLAB, which I later found to be something I was doing. So I thought I would just give it a quick go since I had it installed... I think I'll wait rather than do beta testing - got a bit much going on, and a solid PIC development system is more important than the new features MPLABX has.