Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers

Does anybody know what has happened to their old compilers e.g. H8/300 or Z180?

Is somebody buying the rights to these products? x----------x

Reply to
nobody
Loading thread data ...

Very small market I guess. IAR has EOLed H8/300 two years ago, and even then they never released a GUI version for it.

--
Gemaakt met Opera\'s revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply to
Boudewijn Dijkstra

They binned them, as to be expected.

Unlikely, as they would probably include common code that is part of the PIC compiler which Microchip want to keep for themselves.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
David L. Jones

Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free of charge? Atmel uses gcc, so it must be getting some good market share on that aspect alone. I recently did some work on the AP7000 running linux, and whilst I hate linux its clear that Atmel has done a lot of work to make it all free. Gcc is pretty good, can microchip beat it?

Reply to
The Real Andy

The GNU tools have been around for years for the H8/300 too, but were pretty rough - as one would expect for a) a generic compiler without many or any CPU specific optimisations and b) a tool used only by a relatively small number of people and "supported" (not) by that arrogant company called Hitachi. The IAR compiler was a lot better (I used it for the H8/500 series) and the Hitech one was at least as good.

How good is the GNU compiler these days? I see the last updates were about 2002, and there is even a windoze build of it somewhere.

I have moved to Atmel for all new products.

x----------x

Reply to
nobody

Their 32-bit parts are MIPS based, which should be GNU covered OK - so I guess they won't try to beat it. My guess is they will want to make some "point and click" kind of thing for those who find "normal" programming as we know it (command line, text editing etc. "very difficult" things) too complex a task... The bad news is if they do so they will likely get hugely popular (being already more popular than they should be to my taste, many people nowadays thing "PIC" is just a synonym of "MCU" ).

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------------------------------

formatting link

Reply to
Dimiter Popoff

Microchip's compiler support is terribly fragmented though now.

- PIC10/12/14/16 covered by third-party compilers only. Since uChip now owns Hitech, I guess this has changed, technically.

- PIC18 is covered Microchip C18 (proprietary?). Free non-optimizing version.

- PIC24/dsPIC is covered by Microchip C30 (gcc based). Free non- optimizing version.

- PIC32 is MIPS, so gcc.

Last week I did a quick-n-dirty consulting job for which I chose a PIC as it was the only micro with USB and sufficient I/O AND DIP package that I had on hand; rapid hand prototyping was the key here. In the process I got reacquainted with MPLAB and the horrible ergonomics of Microchip's tools... argh! And the fun stuff in the architecture, like ROM tables (const rom char [] =3D { x,y,...} ) that can't exceed a certain size but don't generate any compiler warnings or errors.... yuck.

Reply to
larwe

The last update to the H8 toolchain was June 10, 2009:

formatting link

I've never tried the KPIT Gnu Eclipse IDE, but the toolchain sources maintained by KPIT have always been very solid and current.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I want the presidency
                                  at               so bad I can already taste
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

They release the "demo" version of the compiler free, without a time limit or (as I recall) any limits except that optimizations are turned off.

Having optimizations turned off is pretty bad -- the code frequently bank-switches to the memory bank it is already in, for instance. So the un-optimized compiler is good for learning C and testing algorithms, but its output is rather bloated.

I seem to recall they want over $1000 for the optimizing version of the compiler. I wish they would get it down to much less, or even give it away free as they do their other tools.

Reply to
MC

Regarding the PIC32MX: Microchip's GCC-based offering is C-only, with a bunch of proprietary extensions... meaning 3rd party GCC products cannot compile Microchip's libraries or examples without hackery. Microchip also does not provide complete library sources which scares us. If you can tolerate MPLAB, C only, and incomplete library sources, Microchip's offering is passable, but really weak for non-trivial projects.

We adapted CodeSourcery's G++ GCC-based offering, using Eclipse for development. If anyone's interested contact me; I'll finish the web page describing this Real Soon Now.

Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave

Reply to
Dave Nadler

That like a car dealer not allowing test drivers to go beyond first gear. It's a great way to ensure that people continue to have no idea about the quality of the product.

As is any compiler's unoptimized output.

--
Gemaakt met Opera\'s revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply to
Boudewijn Dijkstra

Oh no! :) Please don't do anything to encourage people to use Microchip's parts!

Reply to
larwe

Microchip uses gcc for their higher-end products, but modifying gcc for an 8-bit target isn't realistic.

I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free. Microchip's C18 compiler is $500; you can get a demo version, but it disables some optimisations after 60 days, and you have to register to get it (and provide offline contact details; OTOH, at least they don't require your phone number, like Hi-Tech did for their free version).

Reply to
Nobody

Does anyone know what the deal is with the restrictions of C30?

It's derived from gcc, so they have to provide the complete source for any derivative works. So either the restricted optimisations are performed by a separate program, or they're only restricted in the pre-compiled binary packages but not the source code, or they're making a dubious interpretation of what constitues a derivative work.

Reply to
Nobody

Where are you getting this info? The last change to the H8/300 GCC backend was June 4th. Red Hat has been selling an H8/300 toolchain (with varying levels of support) for as long as I can remember, and a windows build has always been available. How do I know? I'm the one responsible for the H8/300 within our group! I even recall doing my first H8/300 to DJGPP port in 1992...

(as for the PIC compiler, the PIC24 Microchip compiler *is* gcc, and is available - with sources - free of charge already)

Reply to
DJ Delorie

If you don't have a valid license, it forces you to -O0.

Get the source code from their web site, comment out that code (a single #define controls it), and rebuild. It just works, and has all the optimizations enabled that way.

However, by doing that, you no longer have a license to use their libraries.

Reply to
DJ Delorie

e

Oddly enough when faced with this question I encounter a mental block that turns my number into 617-861-3962.

Reply to
larwe

The approach used with C18 is that some optimisations are disabled after

60 days. This allows it to be used both as a time-limited evaluation copy of the complete product and as a feature-limited freeware version.

The problem here is that it's bound to involve some kind of malware behaviour, otherwise the user could just re-install it every 60 days.

Reply to
Nobody

It's possible that providing false information could count as "obtaining goods or services dishonestly"[1].

[1] Formerly known as "obtaining goods or services by deception"; it was changed because it didn't apply when the entire process is automated, as it isn't possible to "deceive" a computer.
Reply to
Nobody

No leg to stand on - I honestly don't want to give them my contact details so they can harass me. This issue has, in any case, been litigated and killed aeons ago in cases revolving around people who enter inaccurate profile information for (e.g.) free email services.

Reply to
larwe

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.