Mark Newland <ape@ESKIMO.COM> said:

> The last thing I want to do is create yet another holy war on the great
> aspects of one C compiler over another.  What I would like to ask is the
> complexity involved with re-writing my old CCS code to someother
> compiler such as Hi-Tech.  I know that there is some work involved when
> going to/from Microchips native assembly language (*.asm) and Techtools
> CVASM (*.src) for instance.  However, it is not beyond a little time to
> do so.  Would converting from my old CCS code to Hi-Tech be better,
> worse, or about the same as going from a *.asm file to a *.src file?

I've tried to convert code written for CC5X to CCS, from Hi-Tech to CC5X, and
from Hi-Tech to CCS, with varying degrees of success.  Going from anything to
CC5X I had no luck due to the limitations of CC5X, though I understand it's
much improved since I tried it.  Going from Hi-Tech to CCS and back you will
run into a couple of issues:

1. CCS has built-in functions that HT doesn't, so some code will have to be
written/re-written from scratch.  For example, with CCS I say:

setup_adc(ADC_CLOCK_DIV_32);
setup_ccp1(CCP_CAPTURE_RE);
setup_timer_1(T1_INTERNAL | T1_DIV_BY_1);

With HT I'd have to rewrite all that to set individual control register bits.
I could probably actually write functions in an #included file and leave the
original source untouched.  If it's a lot of CCS code, though, you may find
there are a LOT of functions you will need to write from scratch.  Those
builtin functions, as well as an extensive driver library, are a couple of the
reasons I selected CCS...

2. I *think* -- and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong -- HT
considers int to be 16 bits and short to be 8 bits, as opposed to 8 and 1 bits
in CCS.  I also seem to recall HT has no single-bit type (maybe booloean?).
Some typedefs might be needed to get past this.

In short, if you've used none of CCS' compiler-specific features, it may not
be a real big job.  Otherwise it would probably be more of a line-by-line
rewrite than simply making a few minor changes.  Still not too difficult, of
course, they are both C.

As for going from .asm to C source...  rotsa ruck, never heard of an animal
like that.  It would seem that writing such a beast would be an order of
magnitude more difficult than writing a compiler.

Dale

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