Searching \ for '[PIC] compiler comparison' 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 comparison'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] compiler comparison'
2009\03\01@131859 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
(I just added a PIC tag so everyone can see your message here in piclist)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: wb <spam_OUTwsbcommTakeThisOuTspamearthlink.net>
Date: Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Subject: compiler comparison
To: .....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu



anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler
product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm
wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type.

any observations as to which has the most bang for the money?



tia


2009\03\01@133847 by solarwind

picon face
I would recommend neither because both look cheezy and would probably
produce bloated code. I would highly recommend HI-TECH compilers as
they produce amazingly compact code. Well, HI-TECH for PIC 16 and
below. For anything above, I would recommend MICROCHIP compilers as
those are really cool. Really cool.

2009\03\01@160841 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: would recommend neither because both look cheezy and would probably
:: produce bloated code

A very sweeping statement - have you tried either of them rather than
go by looks?

I've used Wiz-C for a number of years, mainly because they have an
excellent simulator and wave injection package - though MPLAB is now
catching up.

I only use the 'c' environment as I always have mindset problems with
RAD packages, but the Webbrick (not mine) was programmed completely
using Wiz-C.

Anyhow, the code is not as tight as XCSB or Hi-Tech (paid for
version), but then the price is not the same as Hi-Tech - the main
niggles about Wiz-C are an IDE that has weird editing inconsistencies
- this has been since Wiz-ASM, and the writers obviously don't think
truncation of cutting and pasting is a problem, or occasionally
producing slightly different compilation results or the annoying
'cannot dived by zero' because of a misclick in the margins of the IDE
when bookmarking or setting up a breakpoint. Breakpoints need to be
deleted if you add code and recompile, otherwise they end up all over
the shot.

I haven't used Boost so can't comment - i can provide some 'C' code
and the resultant assembler if the OP is interested, though you can
download  a trial version which is limited to 2K worth of program
code, not sure if they still ahve it locked to the RAD environment
only.

One thing to note - is that if you wish to upgrade automatically to
the new version each year with email support it'll cost you GBP35.00
each year. If you just want the compiler it'll be GBP15.00 .

You can import Hitech and CCS programs into FED and it comes with a
'creator' program that allows you to add in new parts and stimulus
files as well as RAD elements.

Colin
--
cdb, colinspamKILLspambtech-online.co.uk on 2/03/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\03\01@172318 by Russ Hensel

picon face
wsbcomm@earthlink.net said:

anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler
product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm
wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type.

any observations as to which has the most bang for the money?


russ says:

I have used boostc, but not the others.  like it a lot.  Full product limited to 2 k code
is available for download with docs, so why not try it.  IDE is nice including source level
simulation/debugging.  

Full price is also excellent.


2009\03\01@231851 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 1, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Russ Hensel wrote:

> anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler
> product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm
> wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type.

No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free  
"evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation  
would seem to be a logical next step.  You can even compare them to  
the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a  
different price class than you're looking for, but both also have eval  
versions to try out.)

Huh.  So does anyone have a set of "benchmarks" aimed at  
microcontroller C compilers? I had in mind something "white box" that  
you'd have to look at the assembler to do a 'real' evaluation, that  
included common structures that are frequently optimized (or done  
poorly) on microcontroller architectures.  Bit manipulation, direct  
port IO, function pointers, etc...

BillW

2009\03\02@044937 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler
>> product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm
>> wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type.
>
>No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free
>"evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation
>would seem to be a logical next step.  You can even compare them to
>the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a
>different price class than you're looking for, but both also have eval
>versions to try out.)
>
>Huh.  So does anyone have a set of "benchmarks" aimed at
>microcontroller C compilers? I had in mind something "white box" that
>you'd have to look at the assembler to do a 'real' evaluation, that
>included common structures that are frequently optimized (or done
>poorly) on microcontroller architectures.  Bit manipulation, direct
>port IO, function pointers, etc...

I suspect the Hi-Tech C won't come out of this very well, judging by
comments here in the recent past about the abysmal code optimization from
the evaluation version.

2009\03\02@075648 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Alan B. Pearce
> Sent: 02 March 2009 09:50
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [PIC] compiler comparison
>
> >> anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c"
compiler
> >> product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and
i'm
> >> wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type.
> >
> >No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free
> >"evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation
> >would seem to be a logical next step.  You can even compare them to
> >the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a
> >different price class than you're looking for, but both also have
eval
{Quote hidden}

from
> the evaluation version.

You can still run the compiler with full optimisation for a 45 day
evaluation period.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2009\03\03@025948 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 2, 2009, at 1:49 AM, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> I suspect the Hi-Tech C won't come out of this very well, judging by
> comments here in the recent past about the abysmal code optimization  
> from
> the evaluation version.

Hi-tech has a "lite" version that is free and has the "abysmal"  
optimization,
but they also have a limited-time "demo" version that is a "fully  
functional version" including the fancy optimization...

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...