I use CCS PCWH for most of my PIC projects these days. It generates
quite good code in general. Unlike a lot of CCS users I don't use many
of their library routines (it makes my code more generic an portable),
although they've got an extensive library for peripheral functions
built-in. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it as my main PIC programming
tool.=20

As an aside, I like CCS's debugger MUCH better than MPLAB. It's one of=20
the reasons I have settled in on CCS for my PIC C compiler. Their PIC=20
Configuration Wizard is also handy once in a while if you are whipping
up a quickie project and want to have the compiler setup all your=20
peripherals for you. These features are only available in the PCW and=20
PCWH versions and not the command line compiler versions.

I also used to use Bytecraft Limited's MPC compiler for 14-bit PICs. It
generates the best, most compact PIC code I've ever seen from a C
compiler. In most cases as good or better than I could do in assembler
without spending hours of my time optimizing. I'm not sure I'd
recommend it now as it doesn't support 32 bit math and they don't have
PIC18 support. I still reference it as a benchmark for "what can be
done" with a PIC C Compiler though.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:33:06 -0500, Alex Parkinson wrote:
>=A0Similarly, we're considering buying a C compiler, as well. I've=20
>=A0demoed all of the compilers I could find, and I liked the Hi-Tech
>=A0compiler best (most compact code, easy to use). =A0It's pretty
>=A0expensive, however. =A0What are your opinions on the less expensive c
>=A0compilers, like CCS, C2C/BoostC, CC5X/CC8E, and any others I've left
>=A0out?

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist