I see...  those things haven't been a problem for me so far, I just keep
in mind what the function is supposed to be doing and write the code
accordingly.  I'm not a C programmer by trade, and in fact have only used
CCS extensively, so those are features I don't miss.  The other C
compilers I tried for the PIC sucked far worse, lacking even the
rudimentary capabilities required of simple programs.  I didn't try the
ones out of the price range of the average hobbyist.  So CCS may not be
ideal, but at $99 for the 14-bit compiler or I think $250 for the complete
IDE and 12- and 14-bit compilers, it seemed to be the clear winner for my
needs at the time.  And in regards to the OP's criteria, it dos have the
most extensive collection of built-in functions, libraries and examples I
saw out of the compilers I looked at.

Dale
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
          - Arnold Edinborough


On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Tal Dayan wrote:

> > Of course some will also point out that
> > it's not true, pure, 100% ANSI C, and they're quite right.
>
> The main point is not it is not a pure ANSI C but that it lakes
> elementary features that are available in most commercial C compilers
> written
> in the last 10 years or more.
>
> For example, generating an error when a function that is declared as 'int
> foo()'
> does not return any value. Or, that it does not complain when you call a
> function
> with a pointer instead of a structure.

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