'Byte Craft C Compiler'
|> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 05:05:24 -0700
> From: Daniel Oshaben <IX.NETCOM.COM> oshaben
> I am new to this list and am wondering if anyone has an opion on the
> Byte Craft C compiler. We are looking for a good quality compiler for
> development with the PIC proccessors. We presently use 16c57, 16c64,
> 16c74 and 17c42 chips. Any comments will be apprecheated.
> Thank you
> Dan Oshaben
I'd have to recommend the ByteCraft compiler. It's not perfect, but
it does work. It will allow you to use the banked registers on the '57
without troubling your head about FSR bit twiddling, and handles the
code pages fairly well. It has problems with a really full '57 code
I haven't used it on a '64 or '74 project, but I would expect it to
be good, based on '57 code generation. The list says to watch out for
interrupt entry/exit code, though.
The price is not hobby-friendly, but it's worth it if you think in C
and need to code for a PIC.
Tim Braun | Voice: 204-942-2992 ext 228
Continental Healthcare Systems Canada | FAX: 204-942-3001
1900-155 Carlton St | Email: chs.mb.catim
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3H8 | (no web yet)
Daniel Oshaben (ix.netcom.com) wrote: oshaben
> I am new to this list and am wondering if anyone has an opion on the Byte
> C compiler. We are looking for a good quality compiler for development
> PIC proccessors. We presently use 16c57, 16c64, 16c74 and 17c42 chips. Any
> comments will be apprecheated.
If you're looking for high quality, Byte Craft's compiler is the way to
It's not completely bug-free, but it's closer than the others. Also,
it'll work with all those PICs you mentioned, and you can debug MPC code at
the C source-code level with Microchip's PIC-Master emulator.
> "I wish someone would develop a spell checker for E Mail"
Someone has... There are a number of e-mail readers (including the one I
use, "E-Mail Connection") that do spell-checking.
Andrew Warren - ix.netcom.comfastfwd
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista California
Mark A. Corio
We have used the ByteCraft MPC compiler for the 16C74. After a few upgrades
and a little learning we have it working pretty well. Our applications are
as configuration processors...we communicate with the PIC via RS-232, etc.
and the PIC configures our hardware systems. For this type of code the MPC
compiler is pretty good and we plan to continue to use it.
Mark A. Corio
Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.
200 Buell Road, Suite 9
Rochester, NY 14624
Tel: (716) 328-5850
Fax: (716) 328-1144
***** Designing Electronics For Research & Industry *****
'Byte Craft C Compiler'
Is anyone using the Byte Craft C Compiler?
For anyone who know about this compiler, I have been using version 1.10d
for most of my programs. I have recently tried their newer version
If I compile the same program on both compilers, version 1.10d (the one
initially written for), the code works, while the one compiled with
version 1.20b does
not work properly.
Errors seem to come from timing and communications with the SCI. I
would like to
use the newest one because it has better code compression and I can
my code each time they come out with a newer compiler.
Anyone ever here of this or come across this before or have any
You are right the V1.20b has better code compression.
and would affect timed code. You didn't state which SCI
drivers you are using. The SCI library distributed with
V1.20b is solid.
Version 1.20b was released in August 1996 and was
sent at that time to all registered users. Since that time
support for the 16C66 67 76 77 has be added to
Send support questions to bytecraft.comsupport
Why isn't the compiler upward compatible?
By SCI drivers, do you mean hardware?
John Bellini wrote:
> Why isn't the compiler upward compatible?
The MPC compiler is language upward compatable
the timing of individual statements will vary.
> By SCI drivers, do you mean hardware?
V1.20b is distributed with SCI hardware drivers.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998
, 1999 only
- New search...