Hi John,
Thanks again for the information.

After more thought and looking through my code I am leaning towards
the Hi Tech compiler..

I have a 18F demo board on the way so I shall download the trial
versions of each one and give them ago.

Cheers,
Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of piclist@XARGS.COM
Sent: Monday, 24 May 2004 10:56 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: C-compiler PIC18F


On Mon, 24 May 2004, Peter Mcalpine wrote:

> I am porting code from a Renasas (Mitsubishi) M16C62 16 bit
> processor (we are loosing some functions along the way, all in
> the name of lower cost..). It is compiled using the Renasas C
> compiler at present..
>
> Reading the comparisons makes me a little concerned that it
> wont be quite as easy as I hoped... I have used the IAR one
> previously and apart from the cost I feel it would be an
> easier path to take.

I've ported code (not an entire application, just libraries) from the
M16C (IAR's compiler) to Hi-Tech with no difficulties.  What are you
concerned about?

> Can anyone using the IAR compiler comment on it Vs the others?
> Is it really 4x better?

My only experience with IAR was porting an application to it from
Hi-Tech PICC-18.  The resulting code was so much larger (24KB vs.
36KB) that it didn't fit in the target processor (32KB).

--
John W. Temples, III

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

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body