RE: Status on enhanced 14-bit instruction set

Our full design simulator is not spice but it is gate level.
Full chip spice would take more time than our customers are willing to wait.
It is not MPSIM :)

Joseph Julicher
Applications Manager
Microchip Technology, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamas Rudnai [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Status on enhanced 14-bit instruction set

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:25 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> MPASM is ancient but proven on our other devices.  Unfortunately MPASM is written in Turbo Pascal and very few people will admit to knowing
> Pascal these days.  Additionally, it has a windows gui built into it that some people actually use.  (call mpasmwin from the command line!)

I do actually :-) But maybe because I am old enough. Actually Turo
Pascal was a great system by that time, for many years I refused to
switch to C as it generated much smaller code than MSC, Think C or
even Turbo C. I think the only real alternative was Watcom but my
memories may tricking me.

> We have a new C16 project that DOES use GPASM.
> Also, the MPLAB 10 is cross platform so we must either A) port MPASM or B) switch to GPASM.  It looks like Plan B is simplest.
> Naturally these things take time.

Wow, that's great news (multiplatform MPLAB and C16 as well)! Thanks for that!

> We do not design chips or simulate them in Windows (Linux actually) so design needed something that runs on Linux to produce test code.  GPASM does that.

It would be so great seeing MPSIM on Linux as I just love the stimuli
capabilities it gives. BTW: This device simulation goes as far as
spice simulation as well? I guess that is not a public product either?

Thanks,
Tamas

>
> Joseph Julicher
> Applications Manager
> Microchip Technology, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamas Rudnai [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Status on enhanced 14-bit instruction set
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> That is something very new I have learnt just now. I was surprised
> that you modified GPASM instead of MPASM for these tests -- hopoe they
> will not burn you because of telling this us :-)
>
> Anyway, why Microchip does not switch to GPASM if you guys are using
> that as a primary platform for developing your product? ;-) It seems
> to me that it is a double work to implement something to GPASM and
> then to MPASM too...
>
> Thanks,
> Tamas
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:05 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I added the enhanced instruction set to GPASM 2 years ago when we were
>> defining the instruction set.  I passed the modifications on to the
>> list.
>>
>> I can provide the version (old) of GPASM that we used to generate code
>> for the chip simulations.
>>
>> Joseph Julicher
>> Applications Manager
>> Microchip Technology, Inc.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger Dellor [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 2:23 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Status on enhanced 14-bit instruction set
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm beginning to write assembler code for the p16f1827 (and new to this
>> list).  I have version 0.13.7, which I believe is the latest, and it
>> does not
>> support this part.  So, to get started, I'm pretending that I have a
>> 16f1933, and modifying the 16f1933.inc file to reflect the 1827.  If I
>> can't
>> get a 16f1827.inc file from Microchip - the request is pending - I can
>> write
>> my own, but gpasm does not appear to recognize the enhanced
>> instruction set which I would like to use.
>>
>> So, if I'm not doing something wrong, does anyone know when gpasm
>> will support the extra instructions in the enhanced instruction set.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> cell   650 823-5307
>> home   650 969-8227
>> e-mail [email protected]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
> printf(s=%s%s%s, q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
> q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>



-- 
int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
printf(s=%s%s%s, q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]