Re: FW: Linux and C compilers for Microchip PIC

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.gnupic
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> > CCS has a version for Linux as well but I am not so sure about 
> > the quality and the price.

David McNab wrote:
> Price is a quarter of that for hitech picc, and quality is excellent, in
> terms of fast accurate and very compact code. It's improvisations might
> offend some C purists though.
> 
> > SDCC is catching up, but it is much more mature for the PIC18F
> > than the PIC16F. I think it is a good option to use SDCC and 
> > PIC18F for hobbyists on Linux if Wine is too troublesome. It is 
> > said that PIC18F is much better to use than PIC16F even though 
> > I have very limited experience with PIC18F.
> 
> From what I've seen, sdcc has a long way to go in terms of the quality
> of the code generator - it's presently generating much larger code than
> CCS does.
> 
How does picforth compare for size, for 'simple utilities' i.e. without
task-swapping and multi-byte arithmetic ?

> > If Wine is an option, then I think MPLAB C18 with PIC18F is a
> > good option as well. They have the Student version for free. 
> 
> Depends on the limitations in the student version.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, 18F is way better, 16F is best avoided unless one
> has major part cost constraints.
> 
What's the page-swapping situation with these 16F & 18F versions ?

What can dsPIC's do ?

What's the point of using a PIC other than for SSI [18 pin max] jobs,
when a proper/mature uC with proper/mature development
software is available ?

Thanks for any info - as you can see, I'm not up to date ;-)

== Chris Glur.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.