At 05:11 29/07/2002, Tal Dayan wrote: > We are using CCS C (PCM version) for 16F876. > As a C compiler, it is pretty poor. It missed > errors that any decent ANSI C compiler that was > written in the last 10 years would catch easily. > ... CCS C is not ANSI-compliant. CCS make no claim of any kind about ANSI (that I'm aware of). IMO anyone who uses CCS C expecting it to be "real" C is making a big mistake. What CCS provide (IMO) is a relatively cheap and extremely useful way of writing code for micros which is a LOT more readable and (at source level) a LOT more compact than assembler. Simply being able to use "printf()" is surely a BIG bonus? OK, there's lots of things you can't do with CCS C. (And I can never understand why the intermediate assembler it generates uses purely numerical and absolute labels rather than useful mnemonics.) But it's still extremely useful. > Nevertheless, we are going to stick to it. The main > reason is the very good PIC extensions it provides. > More or less it takes care of all the PIC specific > details ... Which is probably more important to many users than it being an ANSI compiler? > ... Generated code seems to pretey > good with various PIC specific optimization such > minimization of stack nesting level. Given that many PICs have (in C terms) nearly zero resources for stacks, this is quite an achievement! I often recommend to those intrigued by issues of ANSI C and tiny micros. > As far as I know they don't have a trial version. I'm sure they used to do this, but it certainly isn't mentioned on the Website anymore. HTH, Tim Forcer tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk Department of Electronics & Computer Science The University of Southampton, UK The University is not responsible for my opinions -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body