Andy Kunz wrote:

> I look at the great cost savings in time by not having to check the
> generated assembly code (a necessity with CCS) as the major offset to the
> cost of using HiTech (which, when I bought it, was actually cheaper than
> CCS).  The CCS stuff, as others have pointed out, does support more
> peripherals with macro code, but I already have most of them in assembly
> anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Andy, you shouldn't mislead the guy: most people I know check the output of any
compiler used in an embedded system. Its good practice to know how the compiler
is dealing with your project, and it doesn't take a lot of time once you scope
out the usual oddities. There's too many ways to screw up an embedded system
with any high level language; even with big mini based stuff, I always wanted to
see how the low level bits came out. I don't mean to say that you should walk
through the floating point, for example, but I do expect that the guy that wrote
the library did. AND, on PIC projects there's always something at the low end
that you wrote, or caused to be linked in a particular way.

Always check the output of a project as a matter of principle. Especially if it
seems to be working.

--Tom Rogers  VP-R&D  Time Tech Inc.