Searching \ for 'To C or not to C for PICmicro' 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: 'To C or not to C for PICmicro'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'To C or not to C for PICmicro'
1999\02\03@222958 by Ravi Pailoor

flavicon
face
MPLABC compiles only upto 4 K of object code.

Pailoor

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Chip Technologies
Microchip Design Consultant

No. 70, 9th Main Road,
Mathikere,
Bangalore - 560 054.
INDIA
Tel   : +91-80-3362807
Fax   : +91-80-3369451
Email : spam_OUTchiptechTakeThisOuTspamvsnl.com
Webpage : http://business.vsnl.com/chiptech

1999\02\04@132311 by James Grosbach

picon face
At 08:07 PM 2/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>MPLABC compiles only upto 4 K of object code.
>
>Pailoor

MPLAB-C is a discontinued Microchip product. MPLAB-C17 has replaced it for
the 17Cxx family and has no limitations on the size of object code. A fully
functional demo version is available on the Microchip web site.

       Jim


James Grosbach
Development Systems
Microchip Technology

1999\02\04@154805 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 08:37 02/04/99 +0530, Ravi Pailoor wrote:
>MPLABC compiles only upto 4 K of object code.
>
>Pailoor
>
>Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
>> without any comments specific to your project, i would definitely use
>> c,

i was talking about a "real" c compiler :-)  (btw, i use the hi-tech compiler.)

ge

1999\02\04@162746 by WF AUTOMACAO

flavicon
face
James Grosbach wrote:
>
> At 08:07 PM 2/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >MPLABC compiles only upto 4 K of object code.
> >
> >Pailoor
>
> MPLAB-C is a discontinued Microchip product. MPLAB-C17 has replaced it for
> the 17Cxx family and has no limitations on the size of object code. A fully
> functional demo version is available on the Microchip web site.
>
>         Jim
>
> James Grosbach
> Development Systems
> Microchip Technology

I agree! I did tests today, i got success for code greather than 4K

Miguel

1999\02\04@180749 by Eric Oliver

flavicon
face
Can't afford the hi-tech compiler <g>.  In fact, I'm having a hard time
finding a compiler for the PIC17.  I emailed CCS and they replied that they
would be adding support for the PIC17 "real soon". I'm not sure _when_ that
translates to. I have sent them another email to try to get a little more
definite time frame.

Thanks
Eric

{Original Message removed}

1999\02\07@203119 by Russell McMahon

picon face
AFAIK, and I may be wrong, the 17X PIC instructions  are a superset
of the 16x PIC instructions.

If so, could you use a 16X version C in the interim  - this will give
you access to 17X hardware features but not the more "efficient"
(more CISC) instruction set?



Russell McMahon

{Original Message removed}

1999\02\07@231203 by Eric Oliver

flavicon
face
Russell,

AFAIK, and I may be wrong, the 17X PIC instructions  are a superset
of the 16x PIC instructions.

If so, could you use a 16X version C in the interim  - this will give
you access to 17X hardware features but not the more "efficient"
(more CISC) instruction set?


I wondered that, but the PIC17 uses a 16 bit instruction and the PIC16 uses
a 14 bit instruction. Not knowing too much about microcontroller C
compilers I wasn't sure if the code created by the CCS compiler could be
used for the PIC17.  Does the with of the instruction matter ? Maybe I
could just use the compiler to create an intermediate ASM file and use
MPASM on that file ?.


Eric

1999\02\08@000914 by gregnash

flavicon
face
Eric,

It doesn't matter about the code _generated by_ the C compiler, if you
eventually get  a newer version of the compiler, as it will _generate_ new
object code for the different PIC.  In fact, you should be able to compile the
same program for a whole bunch of different pics as long as you only address
ports, timers, ADCs etc that exist on them all.
If, on the other hand, you work with original or generated assembler, you can
guarantee having to change a bunch of stuff for a new chip.  If you can't wait
for a new C compiler, then this is what you will have.

> I wondered that, but the PIC17 uses a 16 bit instruction and the PIC16 uses
> a 14 bit instruction. Not knowing too much about microcontroller C
> compilers I wasn't sure if the code created by the CCS compiler could be
> used for the PIC17.  Does the with of the instruction matter ? Maybe I
> could just use the compiler to create an intermediate ASM file and use
> MPASM on that file ?.

--
      ______
,----/      \----,  Greg Nash  .....gnashKILLspamspam@spam@namoicotton.com.au
 \   |      |   /   Namoi Cotton, PO Box 58, Wee Waa 2388
  \  \ o  o /  /    work phone 02 6790 3011  fax 02 6790 3087
   \/|\    /|\/     home phone 02 6793 5276  fax 02 6793 5319
     | \  / |       mobile 0417 253742
     |  \ \_|       Private GregNashspamKILLspampastornet.net.au
     |  |\_/|
     oooooooo       http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/8450/

1999\02\08@050236 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
At 12:18 5/02/99 +1300, you wrote:
>AFAIK, and I may be wrong, the 17X PIC instructions  are a superset
>of the 16x PIC instructions.

Yes, but...

>If so, could you use a 16X version C in the interim  - this will give
>you access to 17X hardware features but not the more "efficient"
>(more CISC) instruction set?

I no little about C compilers but I know enough about the 17C to know
the above is just isn't practical.

Some of the reasons you cannot use a 16C  C compiler with 17Cxx
parts are the differences in:

Object code (16-bit Vs 14-bit)  So you can  compile to ASM but you still
have:

The  I/O port addressing and I/O Banking  (Killer)
Different mode of bank  switching  (Killer)
Different mnemonic encoding of the movf  instruction. (Work around)
Different mnemonics for RRF, RLF (Work around)
Config word options (Work around)

Some differences are easy to work around, others are  not.

There really are a lot of 16C/17C similarities but it is a case of
"so near, yet so far."

Jim



>Russell McMahon
>
>{Original Message removed}

1999\02\08@063453 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 09:41:21PM -0600, Eric Oliver wrote:
> AFAIK, and I may be wrong, the 17X PIC instructions  are a superset
> of the 16x PIC instructions.

Actually, no, they're not. Most PIC16 instructions have equivalents in
the PIC17, but not all, and some that do behave differently (different
flags set etc.)

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: .....clydeKILLspamspam.....htsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger EraseMEclydespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3355 8333 +61 7 3355 8334
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...