Details on PIC

Starter kit -

Datasheet - Google for C compilers, free one is gcc.

See

BUT, Give some thought to what you're trying to accomplish. Check out the availability and prices of tools that you'll need for hardware and software development. Compilers for different families may have significantly different pricing structures. I use pics just because that's where I started. I'm not sure I'd go that way today. Today, there may be better/cheaper alternatives for what you want to do. mike

--
Return address is VALID.
Wanted, Slot 1 Motherboard
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
http://nm7u.tripod.com/homepage/te.html
Wanted, 12.1" LCD for Gateway Solo 5300. Samsung LT121SU-121
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

the C

where to

is the manufacturer, so that's where the datasheets are. Also take a look at: The book comes with a blank circuit board and digikey sells a kit of parts to populate the board for US $56.97. The only snag is that you need access to programmer to initially install the bootloader onto the blank 18F452. Since you are just starting out with PICs, I suggest you start with this chip. Otherwise, I would recommend you read the datasheets for the 16F628 or 16F88 (preferred). Those chips are the evolution of the now obsolete 16F84.

The PIC is not a real friendly architecture for C compilers, but some decent compilers do exist. Unfortunately they are not free. I'm not sure how well gcc currently supports the PICs. I think it has better support for the AVRs, which are more C friendly.

and the C

where to

Sathish,

As others have suggested,

is a good place to start. You might want to try one of their demo boards, especially if they have one that looks a bit like you intended application.

I'd look at the PIC18 series of parts from Microchip, unless there is a specific feature you need that is only available in a PIC16 part. The PIC18 parts are often cheaper than PIC16 parts, and generally have more memory, more I/O functions, and can run faster.

Look at using a flash based part that has In Circuit Debugger (ICD) capability. The ICD makes for a nice cheap debug environment. Be aware that there are 2 versions of the ICD available. ICD1 is available from several sources, but only works with a few PIC16 parts. ICD2 supports more parts and is the only ICD that Microchip continues to support. ICD2 seems to be only available from Microchip.

There are a few free C compilers for the PIC, but I have no personal knowledge of them. What I've read suggests they are not quite ready for prime time. They may be worth looking at if you are on a very tight budget.

I have used the Hitech C compiler for the PIC16 series. It was pretty efficient, but a bit of a pain to set up. It has been a few years since I used it, so it may have improved since then. There is a free demo version that will compile up to a 4K program and can be used for commercial projects.

CCS

makes a pretty good C compiler. They have versions for all PIC families (12 bit, 14 bit, 16 bit). They also have a nice source level debugger based on the ICD1 that works with most PIC16 and PIC18 parts. You can write code, and debug it on your target without ever having to learn how to use Microchip's MPLAB.

The PIC18 C compiler is available from Microchip. I've done a few benchmark tests comparing it against CCS C. Microchip's compiler is more efficient, but used to lack the built-in functions provided by CCS. I hear that has improved. You can download a free 30 day demo. You'll also want to look at MPLAB, Microchip's free editor, assembler, etc. tool.

Be advised that even if you are a C wizzard, you'll still probably want to learn some PIC assembler.

Happy hacking,

Mark

AFAIK gcc has not been ported directly to the PICs at all. A derivative of gcc, called sdcc ( sdcc.sourceforge.net ), has been in the works for quite some time now, but the PIC port is incomplete. I'm not sure how functional PIC sdcc is, but it may be worthwhile for learning purposes. Unfortunately, I believe work has stopped on the PIC port, so where it stands right now is where it will stay, unless another brave some comes along to take up where Scott Dattalo (

) left off.

The only other free PIC C compiler I know of is BoostC (

), which is currently in Alpha testing. The alpha version, as well as the SourceBoost IDE, are available for free, but it's not completely finished either, although it does seem to be farther along than the PIC port of sdcc.

Alex Parkinson

thank u all for all your valuable suggestions.

"Sathish Athreya" wrote

PIC & C do not go together well. But I will bet you chose C because that was the language you had at school. And PICs are presently popular, but that will change and some other processor will take its place in a few years. Z-80 and CPM, anyone?

The processor and language you start out with becomes your 'native tongue, so choose carefully: you will forever acquire an accent and PIC is a _very_ low class accent. You can always go slumming with a PIC when the need arises. Climbing out of the slum is not so easy.

I would suggest a popular up and coming processor that has been designed to accommodate embedded C: it should look quite a bit like a PDP-11. Real stack, a goodly number of registers, lots of registerregister instructions and lots of indirect addressing modes.

If you are set on PIC you may want to experiment with a 'Basic Stamp' development kit.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

This has more to do with expectations of a feature-rich processor than it does from any instrinsic unsuitability of PICs for C. If you understand the limitations of the PIC, then C can be very useful, as compared to, say, pure assembly language.

...pure speculation. Any other chip in use today has just as much of a chance of disappearing.

Nonsense. Feature-rich chips are easy by comparison. Climbing into the "slum" after being spoiled on feature-rich processors is what is hard to do.

There is a place for all kinds of chips, if you match the chip to the application. The jobs for which I have used PICs don't need a feature-rich processor with lots of stack. Instead I rely on the simple timing, low power, and small size. Without considering the detailed requirements of the application, it is impossible to say that one chip is uniformly better than another.

-Robert Scott Ypsilanti, Michigan (Reply through this forum, not by direct e-mail to me, as automatic reply address is fake.)

IIRC, there used to be some elemental support in it. Perhaps that's been abandoned. At least I thought it was gcc. The gputils stuff is pretty nice. The gpsim simulator is real fast.

I tinkered around with sdcc 2 or 3 years ago on the 8052 types. It was quite painful. They were really working on it, but it just had too many "issues" for my tastes. I've seen people talking about using sdcc on PICs, but I don't have any personal experience with that.

Hmm.....I think I'll pass then. ;-)

I think I'll look into that. I've only used assembler on the PIC, mostly because the seeming lack of availability of a decent free compiler. C on the 8052 was fun using the Keil compiler, but that's to be expected for the cost.

The biggest problems IMO with C on the 16F type PICs is the 8 level stack and single accumulator bottleneck. I think the 18F's might solve these issues.

I recommend the OP first learn to program in assembler.

Here here!

I agree completely with your statements.

I have been using PICs with the CCS C compiler for years very successfully. One thing that has not been brought up in comparing C compilers is the cost. While I have no doubt the Hi-Tech and Microchip versions of the C compilers are more complete and even faster in some respects, the cost of the CCS compiler is very difficult to beat, aside for some of the freeware versions. The CCS compiler also comes with a very good, well organized manual.

I don't believe C or PICs are going away any time soon. With Microchip's latest entries of the PIC30Fxxx family, even DSPs are within reach... These DSPs certainly do not compare with the high-speed units by TI or other vendors but it's a good start. Microchip has shown a very good history of responding to what is needed in the marketplace, also.

Dave