I really wish someone would port the GCC compiler to the PIC line.  I have
used it with 68K variants with good luck.

Any Volunteers??



Have fun and a very happy new year to all.



In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  In practice
there is a whole bunch of difference.  I pick practice.

Bad things like software bugs do not come one at a time but in bunches and
groups.  My apologies to Mr Shakespeare.

Steve B


-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Dale Botkin
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:46 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Porting from one C compiler to another.


Mark Newland <ape@ESKIMO.COM> said:

> twice the functions at at a great price but as Gerhard said, it has a "...
very
> high non-compliance ..." compared to others.

I just have to ask...  compliance with what, exactly, and why?  It's
compiling code for a very unique hardware environment, so one would think
that the addition of functions in support of that environment would be a
good
thing.  Remember that the mere fact that there exists a predefined function
for (for example) setup_adc() doesn't mean one is required to use it.  I
could, if I wanted absolute portability, write defines and whatever else for
Compiler X in such a way that Compiler Y would compile the same code.  Too
inconvenient, you say?  Hmm...  I felt the same way about writing all those
functions for Compiler Y before being able to do anything useful with it.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.

As for porting old projects to a new compiler...  I  have tried that on
several occasions, not limited to PIC or C projects.  I see it every day at
work, where extensive development is done with C, C++, Java, VB, Oracle and
other languages/platforms.  I see code that isn't portable from one
*version*
of the same vendor's compiler to the next (Sun V4 to V5 or V6, for example),
let alone from one vendor to another (like Sun's C compiler to GCC).  Yes,
in
theory one could write strictly to some spec like ANSI C.  In theory, there
is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is a big
difference.  In the end, when I finish a project I have taken to archiving
the project code along with the compiler that was used to make it work.
It's the only really safe way to maintain the code later if you need to.

Anyway...  having said that, I have still not noticed a terrible lack of
ANSI
compliance with CCS, at least not that can't be eliminated with some
typedefs
and such.  I'm not an expert on such matters, but you won't find a PIC C
compiler that *is* completely ANSI compliant, I don't think a single one of
them allows recursion for a start.  And I'm not trying to make an argument
for one compiler over another (though I make no secret of my favorite, and
my
reasons).  I just hate to see decisions made based upon flawed logic, or
those made that ignore the difference between theory and practice.

Dale
(My neighbor drives a far more expensive car than mine.  I'm convinced mine
is a far better choice than his.  He's equally convinced his is better than
mine in every respect.)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body