| Author |
Message |
James Beck
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
In article <4p46p1tlou7vqff30kvh1m25s2ng0q4kp7@4ax.com>,
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat says...
| Quote: | On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:26:31 +0000, the renowned Chris Hills
chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
In article <eezacque-79A5A0.11501804122005@news1.news.xs4all.nl>, Izak
van Langevelde <eezacque@xs4all.nl> writes
In article <43923d9d$0$226$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
Izak van Langevelde wrote:
Does anyone out there know about a decent c compiler which targets the
pic18 family? So far, I played with the Sourceboost C compiler and the
Microchip C18 compiler, I'm happy with none of these, am willing to
spend some money on something really good, but won't waste my time on
buying and trying...
It's hard to say without knowing your criteria.
True, that's why I'm looking for a decent comparison, which addresses
things like quality and quantity of code, ansi compliance, ease of use,
support.
ANSI or ISO support?
BTW most compilers only go as far as ISO C 90 + A1 and the TC's not to
ISO C99
BTW given that you are on a PIC ISO C compliance is almost irrelevant.
Well, there is at least one that has 8-bit ints... 8-(
|
Yes, the CCS product has a 1 bit short and an 8 bit int, and a 16 bit
long.
They have kinda' fixed things while still maintaining backwards
compatibility with older code by adding types that have the holder size
in them. Like :
int8
unsigned int16
for data types.
Which worked out OK for me since I had already typedefed their funky
type specifiers.
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
roman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:10 am Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
Jim wrote:
| Quote: | I've done commercial products using the CCS PCH compiler. It's solid
enough for that if you keep checking the compiler's output. I've ported
some projects to C18 to see how it stacks up. For my next new project
I'm leaning toward using C18.
Mark
Just to add. I have used CCS compilers professionally for a few years and
also was considering C18 for future projects. So I ported working CCS code
to C18. The fiddly interrupt methodology (where you have to know which
registers your ISR is going to use so that you can save them on entry), was
a bit of a joke. Hitec & CCS hide you from this (unless you specifically
|
And then ISR performance is a joke.
| Quote: | don't want them to). The latest version of the C18 compiler was supposed to
address some of the ISR issues. However, they have only gone part of the way
which in my opinion is even worse. My Microchip FAE is still looking into a
problem where high ISRs corrupt some registers on exit from the high ISR
when the high ISR interrupts a low ISR. It has been appeox. 2 months and
they are still scratching heads.
In some cases the CCS compiler was much better at producing smaller code. I
didn't expect this as I have always been of the opinion that the CCS
compiler is a bit 'cheasy'. Anyway, at the moment I have decided not to
comit to using the C18 compiler until the known issues are fixed.
Hitec is similar is many ways to the C18 compiler but with much better C
friendly interrupt handling (if you so choose). Hitec has a good reputation
and I must say that I have never had any problems with it... ever.
|
If it wasn't so buggy. I do not know most recent HI-TECH PIC cc, but 2
years ago I had problems with compiler "forgetting" to switch the bank,
32-bit calculations inside the call did not work (like foo(a+b, c) ),
command line switches for avoiding certain memory areas did not work, etc.
If there were not those bugs, HI-TECH would get my 10 in comparison with
other compilers especialy for ANSI conformance. I was able to share the
declarations between PC host and PIC firmware with no problem at all.
CCS choked on those headers because those days they lacked 32-bit
integer support.
Roman
| Quote: |
My 2p worth = Hitec is best, then CCS, then others.
Jim
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
| Quote: | Just to add. I have used CCS compilers professionally for a few years and
also was considering C18 for future projects. So I ported working CCS
code
to C18. The fiddly interrupt methodology (where you have to know which
registers your ISR is going to use so that you can save them on entry),
was
a bit of a joke. Hitec & CCS hide you from this (unless you specifically
And then ISR performance is a joke.
|
Yeah, I thought that would be the case as well. But it simply isn't. To get
C18 to work properly several save=xxx parameters have to be be appended so
that used registers are saved and restored. The newest C18 compiler has
problems with TABLAT (still, but only when high ints are used), and so even
if you don't use it you will see looking at the assembler that C18 uses it
(and sometimes forgets to restore it!!!), when you take all this into
account C18 is approx the same speed (and indeed slower if you use FAST
option in CCS. Look at CCS assembly produced for an ISR and it is almost the
same (on my test only the comms ISR was slower on CCS and serial comms
doesn't have to be quick). Saying all that if you were able to properly save
just the registers you use in an ISR then of course it would be quicker. But
in my experience only the most demanding of circumstances requires the extra
10-20 clock cycles used in saving a few more registers than than you actual
need to use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
In article <B3Fkf.13598$w73.1669@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, "Jim" <tech@picmodules.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I've done commercial products using the CCS PCH compiler. It's solid
enough for that if you keep checking the compiler's output. I've ported
some projects to C18 to see how it stacks up. For my next new project
I'm leaning toward using C18.
Mark
Just to add. I have used CCS compilers professionally for a few years and
also was considering C18 for future projects. So I ported working CCS code
to C18. The fiddly interrupt methodology (where you have to know which
registers your ISR is going to use so that you can save them on entry), was
a bit of a joke. Hitec & CCS hide you from this (unless you specifically
don't want them to). The latest version of the C18 compiler was supposed to
address some of the ISR issues. However, they have only gone part of the way
which in my opinion is even worse. My Microchip FAE is still looking into a
problem where high ISRs corrupt some registers on exit from the high ISR
when the high ISR interrupts a low ISR. It has been appeox. 2 months and
they are still scratching heads.
In some cases the CCS compiler was much better at producing smaller code. I
didn't expect this as I have always been of the opinion that the CCS
compiler is a bit 'cheasy'. Anyway, at the moment I have decided not to
comit to using the C18 compiler until the known issues are fixed.
Hitec is similar is many ways to the C18 compiler but with much better C
friendly interrupt handling (if you so choose). Hitec has a good reputation
and I must say that I have never had any problems with it... ever.
My 2p worth = Hitec is best, then CCS, then others.
|
I've used both CCS and C2C, I've never tried Hitec or C18. I find the CCS
compiler to be fairly good, the output is always correct, interrupt handing is
easy and I really like the integraded development environment with the
built-in debugger. Using an ICD and a 5-pin connenction to your target you can
do all the usual debugging things like setting breakpoints in your souce code,
single-stepping, watching variables etc. The only thing I don't like about it
is it's RAM allocation strategy on PICs with banked RAM. On a 16F877 it would
sometimes fit the variables into banks so that some functions would nearly
double in size due to all the bank switching instructions. I found myself
manually assigning variables into banks in order to reduce the number of bank
switches. This is obviously less of a problem on the PIC18 series.
--Tom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete Fenelon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
Izak van Langevelde <eezacque@xs4all.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <43923d9d$0$226$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
Izak van Langevelde wrote:
Does anyone out there know about a decent c compiler which targets the
pic18 family? So far, I played with the Sourceboost C compiler and the
Microchip C18 compiler, I'm happy with none of these, am willing to
spend some money on something really good, but won't waste my time on
buying and trying...
It's hard to say without knowing your criteria.
True, that's why I'm looking for a decent comparison, which addresses
things like quality and quantity of code, ansi compliance, ease of use,
support.
|
The only one I could recommend from that point of view is IAR's. It's
expensive, but you get what you pay for.
The Microchip compiler is cheap and cheerful and nowhere near as good as
Microchip's; none of the others seemed to be anywhere close to ANSI.
pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: C Compiler comparison for PIC18? |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:03:25 -0700, Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org>
wrote:
| Quote: | Izak van Langevelde wrote:
Does anyone out there know about a decent c compiler which targets the
pic18 family? So far, I played with the Sourceboost C compiler and the
Microchip C18 compiler, I'm happy with none of these, am willing to
spend some money on something really good, but won't waste my time on
buying and trying...
It's hard to say without knowing your criteria. What were the problems
with the ones your tried? I have been satisfied with HiTech, but it is
more expensive.
|
You could also look at Knudsen Data's compiler http://www.bknd.com/
for the PIC. I've just come across this one, does anyone have any
experience of it?
Vic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in