Peter L. Peres wrote:
>> 1. I am testing a project that must be developed on 16f84 and finally
>> run on 16C54 and 12C508.
>
> That sounds a bit silly.  If it's going to run on a 16C54 (are you
> really sure, that's a *really* old PIC), it would make sense to test on
> 16C54-JW or the emulator.  As for the 12C508 (completely obsoleted by
> 12C508A by the way), it even has a different CPU core with different
> restrictions than the 16F84.  Why not use a 12F629 instead of the
> 12C508?

16F84 is the normal way to do rapid development for 16c54,57 and
12c508,509. One writes code without interrupts (and without addlw and
sublw) and then simply ports it using IFDEF switches. It is faster and
less painful than emulators and JWs. Of course I check it with JWs before
I burn otps. 16c54a's are discounted to the point where they cost as
little as two lsttl chips here and I am used to it. I also have 16f84s ;-)

> Now that I think about it, don't the 16C5x parts also have the 12 bit
> core?

16C54,57 and 12C508,509 have the same 12 bit core.

> I'm not totally sure because I've never used a PIC that ancient.  Is
> this for a museum?

They are not that ancient, only 3 years old. Yes, it's sort of a museum we
live in here. ;-)

Peter

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