PIC18 compiler

ny

Well, firstly - the architecture sucks (for smaller devices) so don't expect any compiler to be wart-free. I use CCS's tiny tiny software for a couple of designs that should be written in asm but need to be supported by people who only speak C, and it's about as painful/ painless as I would expect for a compiler for such a horrifyingly dismal core.

Having said all this random nonsense, I'd vote for Hi-Tech. Partly because we use them at work and they are at least approachable for support. But mainly because Microchip owns them now, and I would expect they will be the most up to date looking forward.

Sourceboost is cheap. A client uses it for their products and they have no complaints. The only non-standard aspect I've run into is that sizeof is implemented as though it were a function, so parentheses are required always. I actually got them into SourceBoost when another consultant moved on and left them compilerless. For $150 we could keep on developing while we reviewed their options.

Mel.

In message , Meindert Sprang writes

It depends on the project.

Hi-Tech went bust and were bought by Microchip. Their compilers were not bad but not brilliant either.

IAR are expensive but a very good compiler.

There are few professional standard tools for the PIC18 other than the IAR because of the problems over the PIC16. So it depends on the nature of the project. If there is any safety or high reliability involved IAR.

If it is a consumer or low cost type device Hi-Tech should suffice. Microchip can not afford to let these compilers sink.

I have no idea about the SourceBoost

I did not know Hi-tech when Bust. They actual where better before Microchip bought them. Faster updates and bug fixes. It is not a cheap compiler, but it has a free and eval version. I use the older ones with no problems. I am using the New Lite version as a test on a new program. So far so good.

---snip---

They didn't.

I thought they simply got an offer they couldn't refuse.

Cheers Don...

-- Don McKenzie

Site Map:

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:

What do you mean by "very good"? The last time I evaluated IAR for the PIC18, it generated code that was 50% larger than Hi-Tech (~36K vs ~24K). It was so large that I wasn't able to see if the code actually worked, because it was too large for the 32K target processor.

e a

To be

e a

I use the Microchip C18 compiler for PIC18 and have had relatively few problems.

I have used the free Microchip compiler for several projects. So far I have not come across any major warts except that out of the box the libraries are compiled for large memory support (24 bit pointers). First thing I did was recompile for small memory.

You have to remember it is a Harvard architecture and constants stored in flash cannot be accessed as normal memory. The compiler will take care of part of this. For the memcpy, strcpy type library routines you have to remember what memory the source and destination reside in, and use the proper library routines.

Take a look at CC8E from B Knudsen Data. I've used for years and found it to be excellent.There's a free version for evaluation.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

Thanks for all comments and opinions. I have decided to go for the MicroChip C18 compiler. It gives me 60 days time to port and finish the current code and so far, things are looking good.

Meindert

In message , Meindert Sprang writes

You should check the license... most time limited compilers are for evaluation and not for commercial use. You normally can not ship a product with an eval compiler. That said I don't know of any compiler company that has actually enforced that clause.

MicroChip

code

I know. And I'd be happy to pay for a license when this whole thing compiles and runs the way we want.

Meindert