So HiTech only generated about 10 % more code compared to CC5X. With a fixed overhead the difference should be less in a larger program. Good news that the HiTech is now optimizing the code! I bought HiTech when it first came out and was very disappointed that it didn't seem much better than MPC. There were also bugs in the generated code and it was absolutely impossible to make anything out of the generated ASM-file which was very messy. I became a little worried that there actually was a compiler that used even less RAM than CC5X :-) so I compiled again using the latest version of CC5X. ROM remained 238 but RAM went down to the same 12 bytes as HiTech. -AW ; CC5X Version 3.0, Copyright (c) B. Knudsen Data ; C compiler for the PICmicro family ; ************ 7. Jun 1999 14:24 ************* Carry EQU 0 Zero_ EQU 2 RP0 EQU 5 RP1 EQU 6 Global_A EQU 0x2A Global_B EQU 0x2B Parameter EQU 0x26 Local1 EQU 0x27 Local2 EQU 0x28 Parameter_2 EQU 0x26 Local1_2 EQU 0x27 Local2_2 EQU 0x28 Local3 EQU 0x29 Parameter_3 EQU 0x23 Local1_3 EQU 0x24 Local2_3 EQU 0x25 Local EQU 0x22 Local_2 EQU 0x21 Local_3 EQU 0x20 -AW -----Original Message----- From: Michael Rigby-Jones [SMTP:mrjones@NORTELNETWORKS.COM] Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 12:24 PM To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: "New" optimizing PIC C-compiler: Using the HiTech compiler this gave a total of 263 words, of which 19 are used for ram initialisation etc. giving 244 words of ROM and 12 bytes of RAM. Six words more ROM and one word less RAM, pretty close I think. The ASM list file is a bit messy (and long). Do any of you hitech users know if it's possible to just get an assembly listing without all the C code in it? I'll post it if you want though. BTW there's an unused variable Local4 in the TestIf function. Regards Mike Rigby-Jones > -----Original Message----- > From: anders.widgren@gewab.se [SMTP:anders.widgren@gewab.se] > Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 10:09 AM > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: RE: "New" optimizing PIC C-compiler: > > >Anders made sweeping claims. I would also like to see an example of his > research findings. > >So, how about it, Anders? Let's have a look and see... > >Friendly Regards /"\ > >Tjaart van der Walt X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN > > The last time I did a more serious comparison between PIC C-compilers was > in 1995. The problem was to come up with code that would work under > several of these rather simple C-compilers. It would be much more > interesting to use code from an actual "typical" project. I might do > something like that during the summer. The code below compiled by CC5X for > a 16C67 device resulted in 238 instructions and 13 RAM bytes. How much > code does your compiler generate for the same code? Of course, in a real > project I would probably use a look-up table instead of a case structure. > (CC5X has a skip() instructions that automatically generates checked > look-up tables.) > > -AW >