Re: PIC Assembler.

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:01:44 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ian field wrote:
"Tom2000" <abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9oe6i3tsp6u12c7a8v809v8kvgg26aqjhg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:10:59 GMT, "ian field"
<dai.ode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


To repeat an earlier question - would I find an earlier version of
MPLAB easier to get started, or would I seriously disadvantage
myself by denying myself of the advanced features of newer
versions?

It seems a lot of people prefer to use a stand alone text editor,
I'd welcome any advice as to which choice to make.


While you're in the learning process, use MPLAB exclusively. And,
for that matter, the latest version.

If you screw around with oddball tools and toolchains, you're going
to spin yourself in circles, shooting at multiple moving targets,
and you'll never get anything done.

Anything else at this stage of your learning is just absolutely
crazy. Tom



Thanks, is there a C compiler that integrates into that?

If you really want to use C on a PIC, then I again recommend the 18F
parts. Microchip makes a C compiler available on a 90-day (IIRC)
trial basis. At the end of 90 days, you uninstall and reinstall.
Microchip is fully aware that allot of people are doing this, they
don't seem to mind.

This is something I didn't know about -- the ease of uninstalling and
then reinstalling the C18 compiler to get more time. It's just enough
of a hassle, perhaps, to encourage larger businesses to pay their
bills. And enough of a reminder for smaller ones to consider the idea
seriously and periodically -- eventually, the timing of the reminder
will find a more generous mind and the check will be forthcoming. I
can see some logic in the approach. For hobbyists, it would be no
necessary barrier but Microchip probably doesn't want to materially
inhibit widespread hobbyist use of their parts.

Exactly. :-) Microsoft uses this technique by allowing their software to
be copied (til now). They also make sure the youngsters (students) have
cheap and easy access to their software as well. Like crack, they give it
away....at first. ;-)

C on the 16F's is a crap shoot since the PIC wasn't designed to be
used as a C platform.

I've looked over the generated assembly code and it isn't all that
fantastic, but it's not all that bad, either. Livable. But I
wouldn't call it a crap shoot. It generally works, as long as you
have enough flash available.

Yeah, I should have used better words than that. The pay compilers are
decent, but outside of that ......

There are a couple of decent compilers available but they are
not really cheap.

There is that.

My advice is to don't bother wasting your time with SDCC
unless you like checking the output of the compiler as part of the
debugging process.

Hehe. I haven't ever tried it, but the web site says that "work is in
progress" on the 16F, so I see your point here. I note that SDCC
targets the 8051 -- which makes me wonder if it supports analyzing
call trees with the idea of placing local stack frame variables into
static memory (when recursion isn't required.) On the 8051, this is a
big help most of the time and on other processors it _may_ be useful,
as well.

See, that's just the thing. I've never used SDCC on a PIC, just on the
8052. Given that, I can only imagine the code it generates for PICs
especially with their "in progress" disclaimer.

I do like this ARM stuff I've been playing with lately. C or assembler,
it's a beautiful place to tinker. :-)


.

Relevant Pages