I didn't contact them yet. See my reply on the other port. Maybe I will. I
agreed that they are helpful. But If there is a better compiler, I am
willing to try.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Pergola" <no_spam@LOCALNET.COM>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: Seek C Complier Recommendations


> Hi Tony,
>
> Have you contacted HI-TECH to see if they can help you with your concerns?
> I've found them to be very helpful -- they are a bunch of sharp cookies
> (compliment). Most companies don't want to lose customers. If you have not
> contacted them directly or by e-mail, I would recommend doing so, and
state
> that you are at a point where you are looking to switch compilers and
> desperately need their help (which is the truth, right?). You never know,
> things might turn out great -- it's worth a try.
>
> Hope it works out for you.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Ken Pergola
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Tony Pan
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Seek C Complier Recommendations
>
>
> I think you are right that I misunderstood the bug description. However
it's
> a fact that my code compiled with 7.87PL4 does not work logically when
> compiled with 8.00PL3. My code is similar to the example that I gave. It
> worked only after I made all local variables global (by adding a "static"
> before the "unsigned char" and removing parameters passed onto a
function.)
>
> However, if I add "static" everywhere I have local variables many of my
> projects cannot compile due to insufficient memory. That, together with
the
> problem that I stated above, are what I meant by "renders my old projects
> un-reusable".
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclist@EMBEDINC.COM>
> To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Seek C Complier Recommendations
>
>
> > > - Functions which have variables declared within multiple blocks where
> > > code within the block requires the use of temporary memory may be get
> > > corrupted when compiled with global optimizations. A work around is to
> > > move the variable outside of the block.
> >
> > > For example, it you have code like below the compiler *may* mess up
your
> > > program:
> > >
> > > unsigned char foo1()
> > > {
> > >     unsigned char i;
> > >     i = 1;
> > >     foo2();
> > >     return i;    // should return 1
> > > }
> > >
> > > void foo2()
> > > {
> > >     unsigned char i;
> > >     // code here...
> > >     i = 2;
> > >     // code here...
> > > }
> >
> > I agree that it would be a serious bug if FOO1 returned anything other
> > than 1, but I don't see how this example matches the bug description.
All
> > the variables in each function are declared in a single block in a
single
> > scope.  Maybe there is yet another bug lurking?
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
> > (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
> >
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> > ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
> >
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

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