Alex,

Have you ever used an ICD or ICE?

If you have you should know that it is hands down easier to debug than the
LCD/PC printf technique.

This is because you can react to the current situation in the code WITHIN
ONE DEBUGGING SESSION, without having to go back, tweak the source for new
debug statements, assemble/compile, link, burn, run...

I would say that my debugging efforts are at least 2x more effective in
platforms where I have the ability to set breakpoints and examine state than
when I can't do that.

I add another 1.5x if I can modify the source code and continue the current
program execution from where I left off. Unfortunately the only tools I use
that let me do that are Visual C and Visual Basic on the PC side. Wish I has
that ability on the PIC side!

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Kilpatrick" <AlexK@HCITRAINING.COM>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: 16F877 - cheaper/better choice?


>
> In the past, several have mentioned a diff device that might
> be cheaper, etc......but I need it to work under ICD1 (not
> the hockey puck ICD2 unit).
>

You could also re-examine your need for an in-circuit debugger.  Without
that, the option for available PICs becomes *much* broader.

I think I can get 99% of what you would do with an ICD done with a
serial LCD (or PC) and simple "printf" statements.


Alex

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu