Searching \ for '[PIC] Microchip XC8, MPLAB C18 and PICC18' 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=mplab
Search entire site for: 'Microchip XC8, MPLAB C18 and PICC18'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Microchip XC8, MPLAB C18 and PICC18'
2012\01\16@201948 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
www.microchip.com/forums/m625987.aspx
1) Note that MPLAB C18 compiler is Windows only and will be
deprecated by the introduction of MPLAB XC8.
2) XC8 will take source written for C18.

So what is XC8? Is it a mix of PICC18 and MPLAB C18?
Or even a mix of PICC/PICC18/C18? Or is it just based on C18?

I tend to believe XC16 and XC32 are just cross-platform
version of C30 and C32.

-- Xiaofa

2012\01\16@203121 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Mon, January 16, 2012 7:19 pm, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> http://www.microchip.com/forums/m625987.aspx
> 1) Note that MPLAB C18 compiler is Windows only and will be
> deprecated by the introduction of MPLAB XC8.
> 2) XC8 will take source written for C18.
>
> So what is XC8? Is it a mix of PICC18 and MPLAB C18?
> Or even a mix of PICC/PICC18/C18? Or is it just based on C18?
>
> I tend to believe XC16 and XC32 are just cross-platform
> version of C30 and C32.

The XCxx effort is an attempt to help overturn the confusion about
Microchip compilers.  As I figure most everyone is aware, Microchip bought
HiTech a while ago, making an official "Microchip compiler" for the
base-line and midrange PICs.

There will be 3 Microchip compilers- one for 8 bit (PIC10 through PIC18),
one for 16 bit (PIC24, dsPIC30, dsPIC33) and one for 32 bit (PIC32), with
an effort to make the syntax similar (at least eventually) between the 3,
such as similar ways to define config bits.

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.51,-97.91

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

2012\01\16@235815 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Matt Bennett <spam_OUTmattpiclistTakeThisOuTspamhazmat.com> wrote:
> The XCxx effort is an attempt to help overturn the confusion about
> Microchip compilers.  As I figure most everyone is aware, Microchip bought
> HiTech a while ago, making an official "Microchip compiler" for the
> base-line and midrange PICs.
>
> There will be 3 Microchip compilers- one for 8 bit (PIC10 through PIC18),
> one for 16 bit (PIC24, dsPIC30, dsPIC33) and one for 32 bit (PIC32), with
> an effort to make the syntax similar (at least eventually) between the 3,
> such as similar ways to define config bits.
>

Thanks for the information. It is great that XC8 will work for all the
8bit PIC MCUs. As for Syntax, I think C30/C32 are anyway based
on GCC so probably XC16/XC32 will again be based on GCC, right?
The syntax for PICC/PICC18 and C18 are quite different, probably
XC8 needs some work to be compatible with them.

-- Xiaofan

2012\01\17@123135 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 17/01/2012 04:58, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Matt Bennett<.....mattpiclistKILLspamspam@spam@hazmat.com>  wrote:
>> The XCxx effort is an attempt to help overturn the confusion about
>> Microchip compilers.  As I figure most everyone is aware, Microchip bought
>> HiTech a while ago, making an official "Microchip compiler" for the
>> base-line and midrange PICs.
>>
>> There will be 3 Microchip compilers- one for 8 bit (PIC10 through PIC18),
>> one for 16 bit (PIC24, dsPIC30, dsPIC33) and one for 32 bit (PIC32), with
>> an effort to make the syntax similar (at least eventually) between the 3,
>> such as similar ways to define config bits.
>>
> Thanks for the information. It is great that XC8 will work for all the
> 8bit PIC MCUs. As for Syntax, I think C30/C32 are anyway based
> on GCC so probably XC16/XC32 will again be based on GCC, right?
> The syntax for PICC/PICC18 and C18 are quite different, probably
> XC8 needs some work to be compatible with them.
>

This is interesting, I wasn't aware of it at all (not been keeping up with Microchip stuff lately)
I'll be interested to see how the syntax turns out.
Not looking forward to reinstalling all the compilers again though...

2012\01\17@182134 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Mon, January 16, 2012 10:58 pm, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Thanks for the information. It is great that XC8 will work for all the
> 8bit PIC MCUs. As for Syntax, I think C30/C32 are anyway based
> on GCC so probably XC16/XC32 will again be based on GCC, right?
> The syntax for PICC/PICC18 and C18 are quite different, probably
> XC8 needs some work to be compatible with them.

Both C30 and C32 are GCC based, though I don't know if they keep to the
same revision (of GCC). The changes are pretty incremental in the step to
the XC compilers, at least initially. They're not a whole new set of
compilers. The first step is branding and trying to remove the existing
confusion with the compilers and naming conventions. What's there will
remain there, and initially, I think the convention is just a naming
convention (Hitech PICC and PICC18 become XC8, though I believe with a
flag to compile C18 syntax), all the different flavors of C30 become XC16,
C32 becomes XC32.

In the long term, I believe it is to go with the general philosophy of
MPLAB- one IDE across all the architectures, similar register naming
conventions- in that spirit, trying to make the syntax of the compilers as
similar as possible.  A welcome change, as I think anyone who works across
Microchip architectures and compilers will agree.

Regards,

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.51,-97.91

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

2012\01\18@010450 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Matt Bennett <mattpiclistspamKILLspamhazmat.com> wrote:
> Both C30 and C32 are GCC based, though I don't know if they keep to the
> same revision (of GCC). The changes are pretty incremental in the step to
> the XC compilers, at least initially. They're not a whole new set of
> compilers. The first step is branding and trying to remove the existing
> confusion with the compilers and naming conventions. What's there will
> remain there, and initially, I think the convention is just a naming
> convention (Hitech PICC and PICC18 become XC8, though I believe with a
> flag to compile C18 syntax), all the different flavors of C30 become XC16,
> C32 becomes XC32.

I think this is a sensible approach.

The interesting thing will be the efficiency when using XC8 to compile existing
C18 codes. We know that PICC18 is more efficient than MPLAB C18.
But in this case, not so sure about the efficiency in the end since
some type of translation may be involved (convert C18 syntax to
PICC/PICC18 based XC8 syntax).

> In the long term, I believe it is to go with the general philosophy of
> MPLAB- one IDE across all the architectures, similar register naming
> conventions- in that spirit, trying to make the syntax of the compilers as
> similar as possible.  A welcome change, as I think anyone who works across
> Microchip architectures and compilers will agree.

Yes I think this is a good idea. With similar peripheral and now
similar C compiler syntax and similar library functions, it is easier to
switch from one PIC family to another one.


-- Xiaofan

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...