At 05:44 AM 20/02/1997 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]

>The CCS stuff is OK.  Definitely better than ByteCraft/Microchip.  Still
>very buggy, though.  (I often have to proofread the assembly to look for
>errors).
>
>Andy

So Andy,  you have used the MPC from Bytecraft as well as the MPLAB-C correct?

When I make comments about the MPLAB-C I try my best to qualify them with
Version numbers.  So many of the compiler writers are trying their best to
repair their products and version numbers are the way to keep score.  My
complaints with MPLAB-C stem from version #1.10 and yes,  you have to walk
through the code to verify it generated correct assembler.  At some point I
quit that futile effort after it wouldn't generate the correct code.

As for Bytecraft, they manufacture MPC Ver #1.20c which does _not_ require
walking through the code at all.  When I do examine the code it's to figure
out how to rewrite the C to recover some program space or check timing.  The
only time I needed to walk through resulted in the change from 1.20b to
1.20c in 1/2 a day from Bytecraft.  OTOH,  it took 4 weeks to receive a
reply from Microchip on a bug in MPLAB-C 1.10.  Didn't matter by then,  I
had already purchased MPC.

Similarily with your comments about CCS and proofreading.  Which version?
I'm sure Clyde would like to know.

Regards,

John


Pioneers are the ones, face down in the mud,
with arrows in their backs.
Automation Artisans Inc.      Ph. 1-250-544-4950
PO Box 20002                  Fax 1-250-544-4954
Sidney, BC CANADA V8L 5C9