I have a better idea, one of you guys with the Hi-Tech C write a simple
program for the '84' that reads one byte from a half duplex serial port,
echo's back the byte, writes the byte to I2C memory, reads the byte from
I2C memory, sends the byte. A simple test of something we all do on a
regular basis that tests common library support.

My CCS results : ~374 instructions
                 (I don't remember exactly(+4-2), not so go in my book, typical
C bloat)
My ASM results: 208 instructions (MChip RS232 (few mods),My I2C,
respectable)
Hi-Tech ?
Others ?

I am normally more interested in getting the most features in the smallest
space. In this arena, ASM and the gray matter between your ears rule
supreme. Quick turn-around is achieved by cut-N-paste from code libraries.
When code size is no object, C, of course, is the easy way out. If I ever
get a project where this is the case I will buy Hi-Tech C (I love the
features, hate the price). For now, CCS works just fine for small quickie
type projects.

The true value of a C compiler in our world lies in the amount of time the
producer has spent optimizing the generated code. You can have all the
bells and whistles under the sun, but, if the program doesn't fit in the
part, what good is it? Likewise, if you have to down code a large portion
of your program to get it to fit, what have you gained? My other pet peeve
is that C functions normally don't have the options I need, like time-outs.
Nothing is more irritating than a built-in or library function that "waits
forever", if nothing is happening, I have better things to do, like SLEEP
(save the batteries!). The best C system I have worked with lately is
ZWorld Dynamic C, it's not ANSI, but it _IS_ highly optimized for what we
do, real-time systems programming.

Whew, I feel much better, sorry about the rambling.

Have a GREAT day,

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From:   Andy Kunz [SMTP:montana@FAST.NET]
Sent:   Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:15 AM
To:     PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: PIC "C" Compilers......

Mike Smith wrote:

>Here's a real quick question which hasn't been touched - when you
>re-compiled the CCS app into HiTech, which was most space-efficient,
>and could you give an idea of the relative sizes? (rom & ram)  I've
>seen some reasonable '1 page' code/ram apps blow way out when you
>exceed one page.

Not that easy.  Since HiTech is a standard ANSI C and CCS isn't, it
required _major_ changes.

Why don't you send me a CCS program and I'll convert to HiTech and give you
the answer.

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
          Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
        "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================