Correct, the 18CXXX is 16 bits verses 14 bits for the 16C76.  Hence, per
bit, (or byte) the 18C252 seems to be taking *much* more ROM.

"Kosmerchock, Steve" wrote:
>
> Remember the 18CXXX series is 16 bits (2 bytes).
> Not sure if this will help........
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: embedded engineer [mailto:embedded@ELUCIT.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:42 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: [PIC]: 16C76/CCS vs. 18C252/Hi-Tech
>
> After running out of ROM (and RAM) in the 16C76 I am trying the Hi-Tech
> beta 18Cxxx compiler for a 18C252 target and am getting suprising
> results.  With the 16C76 at near 100 percent I figure the ROM usage is
> about 8k words or about 14k bytes at 14 bit words.  With the 18C252,
> Hi-Tech reports "21194 bytes total Program ROM".
>
> Of coarse I had to modify data types and write functions for those
> provided by CCS.
>
> I was expecting about the same ROM usage in bytes or maybe even a little
> less with the 18C252.  I know this is kind of an apples and oranges
> question but I am hoping someone here has similar experience.  Was I
> expecting too much?   Will the non-beta version of Hi-Tech C produce
> tighter code or is that just wishful thinking?  How could the 18C252
> require so much more ROM for the same c code?
>
> Regards,
> David Koski
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.